T  D 


UC-NRLF 


SB    113 


-a. 


rnrm    ciimrAfr 


REPORT 


STATE  ENGINEER,  WM.  HAM.  HALL, 


BOARD  OF  DIRECTORS  OF  THE  STOCKTON  INSANE  ASYLUM 


SEWERAGE  FOR  THE  INSTITUTION  IN  THEIR  CHARGE. 


LIBRARY 

APR  2  9 1945 


SACRAMENTO: 

STATE  OFFICE, JAMBS  J.  AYEKS,  SUPT.  STATE  PKINTING. 

1883. 


EXCHANGE 


OFFICE  OF  THE  STATE  ENGINEER,  CALIFORNIA,  \ 
SACRAMENTO,  August  30,  1883.  j 

The  Honorable  Board  of  Directors   of  the    Stockton   Insane 
Asylum: 

GENTLEMEN:  The  question  of  sewerage  for  your  institution 
naturally  divides  itself  into  two  parts : 

The  First — What  shall  be  done  with  the  sewage  matter  ? 

The  Second — By  means  of  what  works  and  appliances  shall 
it  be  disposed  of? 

The  ultimate  determination  of  each  of  these  questions 
involves  a  consideration  of  the  other,  but  the  study  must 
commence  with  the  first  mentioned. 

This  report  is  divided  into  five  parts;  the  first  four  being 
devoted  to  the  first  question  above  mentioned,  and  the  last 
one  to  the  second  question,  as  follows : 

Part  i — The  Pollution  of  Rivers  and  Estuaries. 
Part  2 — The  Application  of  Sewage  to  Land. 
Part  3 — The  Artificial  Treatment  of  Sewage. 
Part  4 — The  Disposal  of  the  Asylum  Sewage. 
Part  5 — The  Sewage  Works  Proposed  at  the  Asylum. 

In  submitting  this  paper  I  do  not  apologise  for  requiring 
so  much  of  your  time  as  it  will  take  to  read  a  long  report, 
because  I  am  impressed  with  the  magnitude  of  the  subject, 
and  with  a  sense  of  the  fact  that  we  are  about  to  take  a  step 
which  will  be  looked  to  as  having  been  a  precedent,  when  in 
the  future  this  sewage  disposal  question  shall  have  attracted 
as  much  attention  here  as  it  has  in  older  countries ;  and  I  feel 
that  it  is  our  duty  as  officers  of  the  State  to  leave  behind  a 
record  of  the  fact  that  we  have  looked  deeper  than  the  sur- 
face of  the  matter,  and  tried,  at  least,  to  start  aright. 
Very  respectfully, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

WM.  HAM.  HALL, 

State  Engineer. 


WHAT  IS  TO  BE  DONE  WITH  SEWAGE? 


PART  1— THE  POLLUTION  OF  RIVERS  AND  ESTUARIES. 


THE   EFFICIENCY   OF   SEWERAGE   WORK. 

Every  sewerage  proposition  must  be  considered  from  the 
standpoint  of  efficiency  as  well  as  from  that  of  cost. 

To  be  efficient  such  a  system  must  effect  the  final  disposition 
of  the  sewage  matter  in  a  way  unobjectionable  alike  to  the 
locality  sewered,  to  other  localities,  and  the  public  generally 

The  question  of  efficiency  in  sewerage  systems  has  received 
very  much  attention  within  the  past  few  years. 

European  centers  of  population,  and  outlying  districts  as 
well,  have  been  thoroughly  shaken  in  their  social  structures  by 
this  sewage  question,  and  are  yet  earnestly  considering  it. 

And  even  in  the  comparatively  young  communities  of  our 
Eastern  States  such  sanitary  matters  occupy  a  prominent 
place  in  the  minds  of  the  thinking  people  of  all  leading  cities 
and  suburban  neighborhoods,  and  have  received  fitting  recogni- 
tion at  the  hands  of  professional  and  scientific  men. 

As  the  result  of  this  activity  of  practice,  observation,  and 
thought,  there  is  a  fund  of  experience  for  us  to  contemplate. 

The  professional  man  who  undertakes  to  look  beyond  the 
surface  of  this  subject  finds  at  his  command  a  library  of 
recorded  experiences  and  facts,  which  are  multiplying  so  rap- 
idly that  there  is  no  branch  of  applied  science  at  this  time 
more  progressive  than  that  known  as  Sanitary  Engineering. 

No  questions  in  this  connection  have  received  more  earnest 
attention  than  those  of  the  efficiency  of  the  disposal  of  sewage ; 


first,  by  mingling  it  with  the  waters  of  streams  and  tidal  estua- 
ries ;  and  second,  by  applying  it  to  land ;  and,  as  auxiliary  to 
each  or  both  of  these-,  third,  the  question  of  the  artificial  treat- 
ment of  sewage  matter  to  render  it  more  easy  of  efficient  final 
disposal  by  the  other  mentioned  methods. 

The  sewage  to  be  dealt  with  at  your  institution  is  simply 
fouled  water — that  is,  it  is  "water  carried,"  and  not  "midden- 
stead"  matter. 

The  object  of  all  sewerage  work  in  dealing  with  this  class  of 
sewage  must  be  to  return  the  water  to  its  natural  state  of 
purity,  and  to  change  to  harmless,  if  not  useful,  forms,  the 
other  constituent  parts  of  the  substance  treated. 

THE   POLLUTION    OF   WATERS. 

The  practice  of  the  disposal  of  sewage  by  mingling  it  with 
the  waters  of  rivers,  tidal  estuaries,  etc.,  has  been  upheld  upon 
the  theory  that  running  waters  soon  purify  themselves :  that 
the  organic  matters  become  changed  in  character,  and  other 
objectionable  parts  so  far  dispersed  or  altered  as  to  lose  ap- 
preciable influence  upon  the  human  senses  and  all  harmful 
effect  upon  the  human  system. 

It  was  allegecf  that  the  particles  of  the  organic  (animal  and 
vegetable)  parts  of  noxious  matters,  being  dispersed  by 
mingling  with  comparatively  large  bodies  of  water  when 
dumped  into  a  river  or  estuary,  were  brought  in  contact  with 
the  combined  or  dissolved  oxygen  of  the  air  in  the  water,  or  of 
the  air  over  the  water,  by  the  rolling  or  boiling  motion  of  the 
current,  and  thus  oxidized — a  change  equivalent  in  its  effect 
to  burning. 

The  theory  appeared  to  be  well  founded.  A  number  of 
instances  were  cited  where  the  waters  of  streams  polluted  by 
sewage,  apparently  cleared  themselves  by  running  a  few  miles. 
Others  were  brought  forward  where  clear  water  streams  pol- 
luted by  peaty  matter,  and  rendered  dark  and  opaque  by  the 
vegetable  organic  matter  held  in  solution,  became  clear  after 
running  similarly  short  distances.  These  changes  it  was  said 


were  due  to  oxidation  of  the  animal  matter  in  the  one  case 
and  the  vegetable  matter  in  the  other;  and,  hence,  that  the 
waters  were  purified. 

And  it  was  argued  that  contact  with  air  under  these  condi- 
tions of  mingling  with  water,  having  this  effect  of  oxidizing 
organic  matter  in  these  cases,  it  would  have  such  effect  in  all 
cases,  and,  hence,  the  mingling  of  sewage  with  running  or 
tide  agitated  waters  was  not  a  vicious  and  objectionable 
practice. 

So  well  grounded  has  this  theory  appeared,  and  so  strong 
were  the  interests  involved  in  its  favor,  that  in  England,  "until 
"recently,  sanitary  engineers  have  done  their  best  to  remove 
"sewage  matter  from  towns  into  rivers  in  obedience  to  legisla- 
tive requirements."  (Bailey  Denton,  Lectures,  etc.,  p.  248.) 

But  for  years  there  has  been  the  most  violent  opposition  to 
this  "pernicious  and  disgusting  practice/'  throughout  Western 
Europe,  but  more  especially  in  England,  where  the  subject  has 
been  forced  to  the  front  in  ways  that  could  not  be  ignored, 
and  where  the  form  of  laws  and  social  organization  appears 
to  have  allowed  wider  range  to  the  discussion  than  it  attained 
in  the  other  countries. 

But  facts  soon  proved  that  the  theory  of  self-purification  of 
river  waters  was  at  fault.  Some  streams  of  no  less  but  greater 
volume,  receiving  no  more  or  perhaps  less  sewage,  did  not 
purify  their  waters  as  was  alleged  of  others,  and  inquiry 
developed  the  fact  that  by  no  means  all  peaty  waters  become 
pure  in  their  onward  flow. 

And,  most  perplexing  of  all,  it  was  observed  that  streams 
which  for  years  had  received  sewage  matter  without  much 
apparent  detriment  to  their  waters,  became  foul  to  every  sense, 
within  a  comparatively  short  space  of  time,  and  without  any 
considerable  increase  in  the  amount  of  sewage  led  into  them. 

The  subject  now  assumed  a  serious  form.  Great  sewerage 
works  had  been  carried  out,  immense  manufactories  located 
and  operated,  and  all  depending  for  efficiency  upon  the 


8 

privilege  of  a  free  outfall  for  sewage  into  the  tidal  or  inland 
waterways  of  the  country. 

The  battle  now  became  fierce.  Sanitarians  generally,  and 
towns  located  low  down  on  the  streams,  protested  against 
the  pollution  of  the  waters  by  town  sewage  and  manufacturing 
offal  at  points  above. 

The  property  owners  ("rate  payers,"  so  called  in  English  lit- 
erature— really  non-resident  landlords  in  many  instances) 
in  towns  where  sewerage  works  had  been  constructed  leading 
the  sewage  into  the  streams,  as  well  as  those  in  other  towns 
which  desired  to  construct  works  on  this  principle,  together 
with  the  manufacturers  generally,  who  were  for  getting  rid  of 
their  offal  waters  in  the  easiest  way  to  avoid  further  expense 
to  themselves,  vigorously  opposed  interference  with  existing 
practices. 

The  fight  now  became  a  war  very  similar  to  the  struggle 
which  has  gone  on  in  this  State  between  the  hydraulic  miners 
and  the  farmers  and  others  in  the  Sacramento  Valley,  with  not 
so  much  organization  of  the  contending  parties,  however;  but 
with  legal  points  on  both  sides,  and  denial  and  assertion  of 
facts  in  a  way  almost  identical. 

The  objection  urged  that  the  waters  were  rendered  unfit  for 
drinking  purposes  was  answered  by  saying  that  they  ought  to 
be  filtered,  and  that  all  waters  ought  to  be  filtered  before 
drinking,  anyhow.  About  this  stage  of  the  contention  other 
towns  and  cities  resorted  to  filtering  their  water  supplies,  and 
supplying  companies  were  forced  by  legislative  enactment  to 
maintain  filter  beds  in  connection  with  their  works. 

In  the  meantime  the  attention  of  scientific  men  had  been 
secured,  and  a  store  of  systematically  arranged  facts  was 
accumulating  from  observation  and  experiment.  The  aid  of 
chemistry  had  been  invoked  and  waters  were  subjected  to 
chemical  analysis  with  comparatively  satisfactory  but  some- 
times startling  results,  for  waters  which  had  been  regarded  as 
pure  and  which  were  so  to  all  appearance,  taste,  and  smell, 
were  shown  to  be  laden  with  organic  matter  of  a  character 


calculated  to  develop  the  most  deadly  zymotic  diseases  under 
conditions  favorable  for  such  development. 

Some  apparent  cases  of  self-purification  of  streams  were 
shown  to  be  delusive  :  the  waters  were  clarified  and  deodorized 
but  not  purified  either  of  their  organic  impurities  or  inorganic 
elements  not  to  be  desired  in  potable  waters. 

The  next  step  towards  the  truth  was  the  result  of  systematic 
studies  into  the  causes  of  apparent  self-purification  of  river 
waters  in  some  instances,  by  which  results  the  old  theory  of 
the  oxidation  of  organic  matters  by  contact  with  the  air,  and 
the  consequent  purification  of  river  waters,  as  heretofore  stated, 
is  shown  to  have  been  altogether  in  error. 

It  is  now  known  that,  as  a  general  thing,  waters  polluted  by 
the  organic  matter  of  sewage  do  not  purify  themselves  within 
any  limited  space  of  time  or  distance  of  flow,  as  has  been  sup- 
posed, and  in  no  material  degree  by  the  sole  action  of  the 
oxygen  contained  in  the  water  or  of  the  air  above  it. 

It  is  certain  that  alleged  cases  of  self-purification  are  only 
apparent  to  the  eye  and  sense  of  smell,  and  are  not  real ;  and 
it  is  contended  that  if  waters  are  dangerous  to  health  they  had 
better  have  the  noxious  appearance  and  smell,  and  thus  carry 
with  them  a  warning  of  their  character,  than  be  tempting  to 
the  eye  or  lulling  in  effect. 

It  is  explained  that  the  action  of  self-purification  of  rivers 
of  organic  matter,  found  to  take  place  in  some  cases,  is  due  to 
the  admixture  from  tributary  streams  or  springs  along  their 
banks,  of  other  waters  having  certain  mineral  substances  (such 
as  ferric  oxide,  copper,  and  allumina)  in  solution,  or  to  the 
action  of  certain  clays  or  the  mineral  constituents  of  certain 
clays  which  compose  their  bed  or  banks  ;  and  hence  that  such 
instances  of  self-purification  are  due  to  peculiar  circumstances, 
which,  being  local  and  not  generally  distributed,  establish  the 
rule  as  against  self-purification  at  all. 

It  is  understood  that  the  action  of  the  soil  of  the  banks  or 
bed  of  a  stream  in  purifying  its  waters  of  organic  matter,  after 
awhile  ceases,  and  that  in  the  mean  time  the  soil  itself  has 


10 

become  foul  and  poisoned  to  a  degree  that  its  effect  upon  the 
water,  were  it  really  purified  above,  would  be  to  re-impart  a 
noxious  organic  matter  to  it  in  a  considerable  degree. 

SOME  AUTHORITIES   ON   THE   SUBJECT. 

The  line  of  authorities  in  support  of  these  general  conclu- 
sions is  so  very  extended  that  any  attempt  to  give  a  fair  idea 
of  them  in  a  hurriedly  prepared  paper  as  this  one  must  be, 
would  be  futile ;  and  at  the  same  time  it  should  be  remarked 
that  opinions  are  not  all  one  way.  A  careful  tracing  of  the 
subject,  however,  has  led  me  to  the  conclusions  which  I  have 
given  ;  and  I  believe  that  any  one  at  all  competent  to  judge 
of  scientific  argument,  acquainted  with  the  standing  of  the 
leading  men  who  have  appeared  in  it,  and  who  will  laboriously 
trace  the  subject  through  the  records  of  the  original  authori- 
ties, will  find  them  overwhelmingly  in  support  of  the  proposi- 
tions I  have  laid  down,  both  as  to  bearing  of  facts  and 
argument. 

A  few  citations  will  show  their  general  tone  on  this  point  of 
the  pollution  of  river  waters  : 

The  Rivers  Pollution  Commission. 

Consequent  upon  the  rapid  deterioration  in  the  quality  of 
river  waters  in  England,  and  upon  the  growing  opposition 
to  the  mingling  of  sewage  with  them,  in  1865,  by  authority  of 
law,  a  Royal  Commission  was  appointed  to  inquire  into  the 
subject. 

Men  of  the  very  highest  professional  and  scientific  standing 
and  widest  experience  were  appointed  to  the  Board.  Sir 
Robert  Rawlinson,  Past  President  of  the  Institution  of  Civil 
Engineers  ;  John  T.  Harrison,  Esq.,  Member  of  the  Institution, 
and  of  the  Local  Government  Board  of  the  Kingdom,  and 
Professor  John  T.  Way,  one  of  the  leading  chemists  of  the 
country,  being  the  members. 

In  the  first  report  of  this  Board  (pp.  18  to  22)  is  to  be  found 
a  summary  of  the  extended  series  of  experiments  upon  the 
subject  of  "  self-purification  of  river  waters,"  and  it  is  conclu- 


II 

sively  shown  that  the  idea  is  a  fallacy — that  purification  in 
any  considerable  degree,  except  in  very  rare  cases,  does  not 
take  place.  This  report  raised  a  perfect  storm  of  opposition 
supposed  to  be  in  the  interest  of  capital  interested  in  property 
and  works  that  would  have  to  be  heavily  taxed  if  any  change 
was  made  in  the  manner  of  disposing  of  sewage. 

In  1868  the  Queen  commissioned  a  new  set  of  members  of 
the  Rivers  Pollution  Commission.  These  were  Sir  W.  T.  Deni- 
son,  Colonel  in  the  Corps  of  Royal  Engineers ;  Edward  Frank- 
land,  Esq.,  one  of  the  most  eminent  chemists  of  the  present 
age;  and  John  C.  Morton,  Esq.,  an  eminent  sanitarian. 

This  was  a  collection  of  eminent  men  charged,  by  the  terms 
of  their  commission,  with  the  duty  of  "inquiring  how  far  the 
present  use  of  rivers  or  running  waters  in  England  for  the  pur- 
pose of  carrying  off  the  sewage  of  towns  and  populous  places, 
and  the  refuse  arising  from  industrial  processes  and  manufac- 
tures, can  be  ~ prevented  without  risk  to  the  public  health  or 
serious  injury  to  such  processes  and  manufactures,  and  how  far 
such  sewage  and  refuse  can  be  utilized  and  got  rid  of  other- 
wise than  by  discharge  into  rivers  or  running  waters,  or  ren- 
dered harmless  before  reaching  them,"  etc. 

For  the  sake  of  brevity,  I  quote  only  from  the  sixth  report 
of  the  Commission,  issued  in  1874,  it  being  the  latest  to  hand 
at  this  day. 

Under  the  head  of  "Quality  of  water  from  different  sources" 
the  Commission  say: 

"  6.  River  water,  usually  in  England,  but  less  generally  in  Scotland, 
'  consists  chiefly  of  the  drainage  from  land  which  is  more  or  less  culti- 
'vated.  When  it  is  further  polluted  by  the  drainage  of  towns  and 
'  inhabited  places,  or  by  the  foul  discharges  from  manufactories,  its 
'use  for  drinking  and  cooking  becomes  fraught  with  great  risk  to 
'health.  A  very  large  proportion  of  the  running  waters  of  Great 
'  Britain  are  either  at  present  thus  dangerous  or  are  rapidly  becoming 
'so."  (Sixth  Kept.  Riv.  Poll.  Com.,  p.  425.) 

Under  the  heading,  "As  to  the  possibility  of  rendering  polluted 
water  again  wholesome:" 


12 

"  i.  When  the  sewage  of  towns  or  other  polluting  organic  matter 
"is  discharged  into  running  water  the  suspended  matters  may  be  more 
"or  less  perfectly  removed  by  subsidence  and  filtration,  but  the  foul 
"organic  matters  in  solution  are  very  persistent.  They  oxidize  very 
"  slowly,  and  they  are  removed  only  to  a  slight  extent  by  sand  filtra- 
"tion.  There  is  no  river  in  the  United  Kingdom  long  enough  to 
"secure  the  oxidation  and  destruction  of  any  sewage  which  may  be 
"discharged  into  it,  even  at  its  source."  (Work  cited,  p.  427.) 

And,  finally,  for  the  purpose  of  this  special  point  in  my 
subject,  I  quote  a  paragraph  found  under  the  heading — "As  to 
the  Propagation  of  Epidemic  Diseases  by  Potable  Water  :" 

"  i.  The  existence  of  specific  poisons  capable  of  producing  cholera 
"  and  typhoid  fever  is  attested  by  evidence  so  abundant  and  strong 
"  as  to  be  practically  irresistible.  These  poisons  are  contained  in  the 
"  discharges  from  the  bowels  of  persons  suffering  from  these  diseases." 

"  2.  The  admixture  of  even  a  small  quantity  of  these  infected  dis- 
"  charges  with  a  large  volume  of  drinking  water  is  sufficient  for  the 
"  propagation  of  those  diseases  amongst  persons  using  such  water." 

"  3.  The  most  efficient  artificial  filtration  leaves  in  water  much 
"  invisible  matter  in  suspension,  but  constitutes  no  effective  safeguard 
"  against  the  propagation  of  these  epidemics  by  polluted  water. 
"  Boiling  the  infected  water  for  half  an  hour  is  a  probable  means  of 
"  destroying  its  power  of  communicating  these  diseases."  (Work 
cited,  p.  427.) 

The  Metropolitan  Water  Supply  Commission. 

Another  systematic  examination  of  a  portion  of  this  subject 
was  conducted  by  a  Royal  Commission  similarly  authorized  by 
law,  known  as  the  "  Water  Supply  Commission!' 

It  was  charged  with  an  inquiry  into  resources  of  the  country 
to  meet  the  rapidly  increasing  demand  for  pure  water  for  the 
use  of  the  great  metropolitan  towns  and  cities  of  the  kingdom. 

Composed  of  the  (afterwards)  President  of  Her  Majesty's  Privy 
Council  (the  Duke  of  Richmond);  the  President  of  the  Institu- 
tion of  Civil  Engineers  (Mr.  T.  E.  Harrison);  the  late  President 
of  the  Geological  Society  and  Professor  of  Geology  at  Oxford 
(Mr.  J.  Prestwich);  and  the  Chairman  of  the  Metropolitan 
Board  of  Works  (Sir  J.  Thwaites),  this  Commission  also  ranks 
high  as  a  scientific  and  practical  authority.  It  had  ample 
means  at  its  disposal  to  employ  the  men  best  suited  to  conduct 
the  work  of  the  investigation,  and  we  must  accept  its  conclu- 


13 

sions,  which  were  that  the  great  cities  might  continue  to  derive 
water  from  the  rivers ;  provided,  that  there  was  supplied  "perfect 
filtration  and  efficient  measures  for  excluding  the  sewage  and 
other  pollutions."  (Bailey  Denton,  Lectures;  p.  44.) 

Experimental  Work. 

Scientifically  and  practically  this  subject  has  been  quite 
thoroughly  investigated  by  the  first  experimentalists  of  England 
and  France.  Here  is  a  brief  outline  of  points  made  in  one  line 
of  discussion  immediately  connected  with  it : 

M.  Pasteur. 

M.  Pasteur,  a  French  chemist,  whose  professional  standing 
is  so  high  that  his  researches  are  frequently  spoken  of  as  being 
classical,  has  shown  that  even  at  a  temperature  of  30°  C. 
"the  oxygen  of  the  air  has  but  a  trifling  action  on  extremely 
"  changeable  material,  such  as  the  albuminoid  matter  in  yeast 
"water,  or  absolution  of  sugar."  ("Annales  de  Chimie  et  de 
Physique"  $d  series,  vol.  LXIV,  pp.  35  and  36,  also  p.  71.) 

This  fact,  of  course,. goes  contrary  to  the  old  theory  of  the 
self-purification  of  river  waters  of  organic  matter  by  the  action 
of  the  oxygen  contained  in  them,  etc. 

The  conclusions  of  Pasteur  were  taken  up  by  other  chem- 
ists and  observers  and  applied  directly  to  the  sewage  disposal 
problem,  and  there  are  a  number  of  opinions,  based  on  experi- 
ment, to  show  that  the  organic  matter  of  sewage  is  not  oxid- 
ized upon  being  turned  into  a  river,  but  is  precipitated  to  the 
bottom  or  carried  in  solution. 

Dr.  Tidy. 

Those  opposed  to  the  conclusions  of  Pasteur  and  other 
authorities  have  not  been  without  support  amongst  scientific 
men,  and  it  was  attempted  to  be  shown  that  instances  did 
exist  where  river  waters  purified  themselves  of  organic  matter 
held  by  them,  that  such  action  was  due  to  the  oxidation  of 
such  .matter,  and  hence  that  all  rivers  being  subject  to  the 
same  general  influence  of  air,  should  so  become  purified. 


Dr.  Tidy,  speaking  of  the  clarification  of  the  waters  of  the 
river  Shannon,  and  loss  of  organic  peaty  matter  in  flowing 
short  distances,  says  that  "the  quantity  of  organic  matter  (of 
peaty  origin)  is  kept  in  check  by  the  following  means,  which 
are  two,  namely : 

"i.  The  inherent  power  that  water  possesses  of  self-purification 
"  from  the  oxidation  of  the  peat  by  the  oxygen  held  in  solution  in  the 
"  water.  This  process  is  enormously  helped  by  certain  natural  and 
"physical  conditions,  whereby  the  more  complete  aeration  of  the 
"  water  and  the  more  intimate  contact  between  oxygen  and  the  peat  is 
"  effected. 

"  2.  Mechanical  precipitation  by  .admixture  with  coarse  mineral 
"suspended  matter."  ("Tidy  on  River  Water"  Jour.  Chem.  Soc., 
vol.  XXXVII,  p.  295.) 

Frankland  and  Halcrow. 

As  offsetting  this  evidence  of  Dr.  Tidy's,  in  favor  of  the 
self-purification  theory,  Dr.  Frankland  and  Miss  Lucy  Halcrow 
conducted  a  series  of  experiments  which  "  lead  to  the  conclu- 
"  sion  that  if  peaty  matter  dissolved  in  river  water  is  sponta- 
"  neously  oxidized  at  all  (of  which  they  consider  there  is  no 
"  sufficient  proof),  the  process  takes  place  with  exceeding  slow- 
"  ness,  and  cannot  be  accomplished  to  any  considerable  extent, 
"in  the  flow  of  a  river.  The  evidence  proved  the  fact  that 
"  peaty  matter  is  less  oxidizable  than  animal  matters  under 
"the  same  conditions."  (Halcrow  and  Frankland's  tests  of 
Tidy's  conclusions,  Jour,  of  the  Chem.  Sec.,  vol.  xxxvii,  p.  506, 
Trans.) 

Dr.  Frankland,  criticising  Dr.  Tidy's  experiments,  remarks 
that  "  the  apparently  superior  action  that  Dr.  Tidy  attributes 
to  air  acting  on"  (the  organic  matter  in)  "running  water"  "is 
absent  in  the  case"  of  water  falling  elsewhere  than  in  the  river 
channel.  ("On  the  spontaneous  oxidation  of  organic  matter  in 
wafer" Work  cited,  p.  538.) 

Dr.  Frankland  has  shown  "that  a  flow  of  between  n  and  13  miles 
"of  a  stream  polluted  with  sewage  has  very  little  effect  on  the  organic 
"matter  dissolved  in  the  water  even  at  a  temperature  of  18°  .Cent." 

"And  he  has  shown  in  the  case  of  the  River  Wear,  flowing  between 
"Bishop  Aukland  and  Durham,  which  has  been  quoted  by  Dr.  Tidy 


15 

"in  illustration  of-  his  theory  of  oxidation  of  sewage,  the  purification 
"is  caused  by  an  admixture  of  highly  ferruginous  waters,  a  fact  which 
"does  not  appear  in  Dr.  Tidy's  quotation."* 

The  above  is  an  illustration  of  the  class  of  error  into  which 
some  scientific  men  have  fallen  in  this  field  of  investigation, 
and  the  subsequent  exposure  of  such  error  by  other  investiga- 
tions more  thoroughly  conducted. 

But  the  investigation  has  been  recently  carried  further  and 
evidence  is  now  at  hand  which  seems  to  set  aside  the  strongest 
argument  of  those  who  have  hefd  to  the  old  theory — the  argu- 
ment of  facts  observed  of  the  self-purification  of  peaty  rivers. 

Hartley  and  Kinahan' s  Experiments. 

Mr.  Gerard  A.  Kinahan,  Association  Royal  College  of 
Science,  Dublin,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consultation  of 
Prof.  W.  N.  Hartley,  F.R.S.E.,  has  made  a  most  satisfactory 
study: — 

ist — Of  the  effect  of  thorough  aeration  on  the  organic 
peaty  matter  in  river  waters. 

2d — Of  the  cause  of  the  natural  clearing  of  the  waters  of 
some  peaty  rivers  and  loss  of  organic  matter.  (See  "Report  on 
the  clearing  of  peaty  waters!'  by  Gerard  A.  Kinahan,  2d  series, 
Vol.  Ill,  Proc.  Roy.  Irish  Academy,  pp.  447,  596.  Also,  "  The 
self -purification  of  peaty  rivers"  by  W.  N.  Hartley,  F.R.S.E., 
Jour.  Soc.  of  Arts,  1882.) 

Aeration  does  not  produce  oxidation. 

Waters  highly  charged  with  organic  peaty  matter  which  in 
their  natural  courses  were  dashed  to  spray  in  falling  several 
hundred  feet  (360  in  one  instance  and  700  in  another)  in  rock 
bound  channels  in  their  natural  course,  being  thus  thoroughly 
aerated,  were  found,  as  shown  by  analytical  testing  of  the  car- 
bon, nitrogen,  and  ammonia  contained  therein,  to  have  lost  no 
appreciable  part  of  such  organic  matter. 

Prof.  Hartley  says  of  these  results:     "I  consider  the  fore- 

*  "  On  the  Self  Purification  of  Peaty  Rivera,"  by  W.  N.  Hartley,  F.B.S.E.,  Journal  Society  of 
Arts,  1883. 


16 

"  going  analyses  conclusive  evidence  that  a  peaty  river  cannot 
"  undergo  the  slightest  degree  of  purification  from  its  organic 
"  constituents  by  the  natural  process  of  aeration." 

Mechanical  Action. 

The  mechanical  action  of  clay  sand,  pure  quartzose  sand, 
gelatinous  silicia  and  magnesia,  in  reducing  the  amount  of 
organic  peaty  matter  by  subsidence,  was  tested,  but  no  reduc- 
tion thereby  could  be  detected. 

The  same  action  of  carbonate  of  lime,  powdered  chalk,  and 
limestone  was  found  to  be  practically  nothing,  but  the  chemi- 
cal action  was  slightly  apparent  in  reducing  the  amount  of 
organic  matter. 

In  the  same  mechanical  way  the  effect  of  particles  of  clay 
of  different  kinds  was  tested  and  found  to  be  nothing,  while 
the  action  of  iron  and  alumina  associated  with  these  particles 
had  some  material  effect  on  the  peat  coloring  matter  in  caus- 
ing the  particles  to  adhere  to  the  particles  of  clay  "  as  to  a 
mordant." 

Professor  Hartley  says  of  this  series  of  experiments  : 

"  The  results  of  the  experiments  with  clay  sand,  pure  quartzose 
"  sand,  gelatinous  silicia,  and  magnesia,  prove  that  there  is  no  decol- 
"  orizing  action  on  the  peaty  coloring  matter  which  can  be  described 
"  as  mechanical" 

Effect  of  Mineral  Waters. 

The  effect  of  waters  containing  mineral  matter  in  solution 
was  tested  where  a  tributary  from  a  mining  district,  whose 
waters  were  highly  charged  with  such  mineral  matters  as  ferric 
oxide,  alumina,  and  copper,  mingled  with  the  waters  of  a 
peaty  river,  and  it  was  found  "that  with  the  increase  in  min- 
"  eral  matter  there  was  a  marked  decrease  in  the  organic  peaty 
"  matter  held  in  solution." 

Effect  of  Low  Temperature. 

It  was  found  that  low  temperatures  caused  the  concentra- 
tion of  peaty  coloring  matters  towards  the  bottom  of  a  vessel 
and  the  clarification  of  that  above ;  but  the  action  was  very 


17 

slight  in  producing  a  precipitation  of  the  peaty  matter  in  the 
form  of  an  insoluble  sediment. 

Peaty  streams  are  less  highly  colored  in  cold  weather, 
because  the  bogs  are  frozen  and  the  waters  run  over  instead  of 
percolating  through. 

Oxides,  etc. 

Commonly  occurring  forms  of  metallic  hydroxides — such  as 
aluminic  hydroxide  and  ferric  hydroxide — caused  a  rapid  and 
efficient  precipitation  of  the  coloring  matter  of  peat  waters, 
while  the  oxides  of  these  waters  were  efficient  but  much  less 
rapid  in  producing  the  same  effect. 

Chemical  Action  of  Clays. 

The  chemical  action  of  several  kinds  of  clays,  or  their  min- 
eral constituents,  in  causing  the  precipitation  of  organic  peaty 
matter  from  river  waters  was  found  to  be  very  marked  and 
prompt. 

Peaty  waters  running  in  their  natural  beds  are  shown  to  be 
clarified  by  coming  in  contact  with  beds  of  blue  clay,  and  by 
an  admixture  of  iron  stained  waters  flowing  into  them  from 
marshy  spots  on  their  course — the  iron  "causing  ochreous 
precipitations  of  peaty  matter"  "on  to  the  stones  of  the 
channel,"  and  "  the  waters  becoming  beautifully  clear." 

Professor  Hartley  says : 

"  This  is  a  true  case  of  the  self-purification  of  a  river  water  by  the 
"  action  of  a  mineral  constituent  contained  in  its  bed  and  banks." 

Finally,  the  observations  of  Mr.  Kinahan,  and  work  of  Prof. 
Hartley,  have  shown  that  the  diminution  in  organic  peaty 
matter  observed  and  shown  by  Dr.  Tidy  to  take  place  in  the 
waters  of  the  Shannon,  is  not  caused  by  oxidation  consequent 
upon  aeration;  "but  is  nothing  more  than  the  mixing  of  two 
"  waters  followed  by  the  precipitation  of  organic  matter  con- 
"  tained  in  one  of  them." 

The  results  of  the  series  of  experiments  undertaken  by 
Prof.  Hartley  and  Mr.  Kinahan,  although  not  altogether  appli- 
3 


i8 

cable  to  the  question  of  sewage  pollution  of  river  waters,  when 
taken  in  connection  with  the  outcome  of  the  researches  of 
Pasteur  and  of  Frankland,  seem  to  upset  the  arguments  of 
Dr.  Tidy,  who  has  been  one  of  the  ablest  defenders  of  the 
old  theory  of  self-purification  of  river  waters. 

Mr.  Folkard. 

One  of  the  very  latest  writers  on  this  .subject  is  Mr.  C.  W. 
Folkard,  C.  E.,  associate  of  the  Royal  School  of  Mines,  mem- 
ber of  the  Institution  of  Civil  Engineers.  In  1882  he  read  a 
paper  before  the  Institution,  from  which  the  following  extracts 
and  summarizations  are  made: 

"  Rivers  are  the  natural  drains  of  a  country,  into  which  every  par- 
"ticle  of  rain  falling  within  their  watersheds  (except,  etc.,)  ulti 
"  mately  finds  its  way,  with  everything  which  it  is  capable  of  dissolv- 
ing or  suspending.  Highly  manured"  arable  lands,  pastures,  with 
"their  thousands  of  cattle  and  sheep,  mills,  factories,  village  cess- 
"po<41s,  and  lastly  town  sewers,  all  contribute  their  quota  of  foul 
"water;  in  some  cases  to  such  an  extent  that  the  river  becomes  an 
"  open  sewer  in  which  no  fish  can  live,  and  the  exhalations  from 
"which,  especially  in  hot  climates,  spread  fever  and  death  around." 

Speaking  of  the  detection  of  impurities  in  waters  contami- 
nated by  sewage,  Mr.  Folkard  says  : 

"  The  organic  substances  in  solution  and  suspension  are  the  most 
"  important  on  account  of  their  dangerous  nature,  and,  unfortunately, 
"  they  are  the  ones  with  which  the  chemist  is  least  able  to  deal.  As 
"  yet  he  has  been  compelled  to  be  content  with  the  examination  and 
"  estimation  of  the  products  of  their  decomposition — ammonia  and 
"  nitrous  or  nitric  acids — or  with  the  determination  of  one  or  two  of 
"their  constitutional  elements  (carbon  and  nitrogen)." 

It  is  perhaps  needless  to  say  that  these  "organic  substances" 
are  contributed  to  sewage  principally  as  the  wastes  of  the 
human  system. 

Mr.  Folkard  asserts  that  in  the  matter  of  detecting  organic 
impurities  in  water,  chemists  as  yet  are — 

"  Powerless  to  help  the  sanitarian  in  discriminating  between  whole- 
"  some  and  unwholesome  water."  ***** 

"In  the  first  place,"  he  says,  "it  is  an  ascertained  fact, 
"  proved  beyond  the  possibility  of  doubt,"  (by  microscopical  methods), 


19 

"  that  mere  dilution,  however  far  soever  it  be  carried,  does  not  render 
"inoperative  the  specific  action  of  living  germs." 

The  generally  accepted  theory  of  the  propagation  of  zymotic 
diseases  is  that  the  living  germ,  or  matter  capable  of  evolving 
that  germ  under  favorable  conditions,  being  taken  into  the 
system,  such  germs  are  propagated  in  the  blood,  and  hence 
the  disease.  Evidently  in  view  of  this  theory,  Mr.  Folkard 
says: 

"  Provided  the  individual  is  sufficiently  weakly  or  unhealthy,  it  is 
"  of  small  importance  whether  he  receive  one  thousand  or  one  million 
"  parts  of  infectious  matter  (whether  in  the  form  of  organized  germs, 
"  or  not,  is  immaterial),  and,  consequently,  one  part  of  infected  sewage 
"  containing  the  dejecta  of  persons  suffering  from  zymotic  disease, 
"  mixed  with  one  million  parts  of  water,  will  be  nearly  as  dangerous 
"  to  him  as  one  part  per  thousand." 

The  difference  being  simply,  of  course,  the  less  chance  there 
would  be  of  happening  to  drink  the  particular  drop  of  water 
carrying  the  germ  matter  when  the  rate  of  dilution  is  great 
than  when  it  is  small ;  and,  also,  again  to  use  the  words  of  our 
authority,  "  the  less  contaminated  water  would  probably  not 
affect  a  person  in  more  robust  health  who  might  succumb  to 
the  use  of  the  highly  contaminated  sample." 

This  author  insists  "that  it  will  be  impossible  to  banish 
"  zymotic  disease  from  a  town  where  water  supply  has  been  con- 
"  taminated  with  the  dejecta  of  patients  suffering  from  that  class 
"  of  disease.  The  very  weakly  will  contract  it  from  the  almost 
"  inappreciable  amount  of  infection  contained  in  the  water,  and 
"  from  them  it  will  spread  to  those  who  have  resisted  the  poison 
"  in  its  diluted  state." 

He  then  goes  on  to  statev  as  a  conclusively  established  fact, 
"  that  the  germs  which  cause  or  accompany  disease  are  en- 
"  dowed  with  the  most  persistent  vitality,  and  are  capable  of 
"  withstanding  heat,  cold,  moisture,  drought,  and  even  chemical 
"  agents,  to  a  marvelous  extent." 

And  illustrating  this  fact,  he  says  : 

"  So  difficult  is  it  to  destroy  them  that  for  many  years  the  now  ex- 


20 

"  ploded  doctrine  of  spontaneous  generation  found  talented  supporters 
"  who  relied  on  their  own  carefully  conducted  experiments  to  prove 
"  the  theory,  all  which  experiments  were  subsequently  found  to  have 
"  been  rendered  illusory  by  the  astounding  vitality  of  these  low  forms 
"of  life." 

And  finally  upon  this  point,  Mr.  Folkard  says  : 

"  The  conclusion,  that,  once  contaminated,  water  never  purifies 
"  itself  sufficiently  to  be  safe  for  dietetic  purposes,  becomes  inevitable. 
»i  *  *  *  *  The  only  safe  test  of  the  wholesomeness  of  a  given  water 
"  is  by  tracing  it  to  its  source,  and  ascertaining  that  no  objectionable 
"  impurities  gain  access  to  it." 

Emphasizing  the  conclusion  that  the  waters  of  a  running 
stream  once  polluted  with  the  class  of  matter  of  which  I  have 
spoken,  do  not  purify  themselves,  Mr.  Folkard  says : 

"  The  chemist  in  the  laboratory  can  effect  complete  purification 
"  only  by  adopting  a  similar  process  to  that  by  which  it  is  effected  in 
"  nature — fixation  of  the  ammonia  in  the  soil,  or  its  oxidation  to 
"  nitric  acid"  (by  the  effect  of  contact  with  air  or  free  oxygen),  "  fol- 
"  lowed  by  distillation  by  the  heat  of  the  sun." 

He  then  gives  an  illustration  of  the  effect  of  contributing 
sewage  matter,  even  in  very  small  quantities,  indeed — contain- 
ing the  dejecta  of  zymotic  patients — upon  the  potable  quality 
of  water,  and  says : 

"  The  above  is  no  fanciful  picture.  The  experiment  was  tried  on 
"  the  inhabitants  of  a  town  in  Surrey,  unwittingly,  it  is  true,  but  on 
u  that  account  the  result  is  the  more  reliable.  An  epidemic  broke 
"  out,  and  the  consequent  -investigation  revealed  the  cause  in  all  its 
"  loathsome  details.  Fortunately  for  mankind  at  large,  the  relation 
"  in  this  case  between  cause  and  effect  was  distinctly  traceable,  but 
"  in  the  great  majority  of  cases  this  is  out  of  the  question." 

And  finally,  under  this  heading  I  find  this  unqualified  con- 
clusion : 

"  There  is  not  the  least  evidence  to  show  that  foul  water  is  ren- 
"  dered  wholesome  by  flowing  fifty  or  one  hundred  miles;  indeed, 
"  all  experiments  point  in  the  opposite  direction,  on  account  of  the 
"  persistent  vitality  of  the  organisms  which  accompany  zymotic  dis- 
"  ease,  and  of  the  utter  failure  of  dilution  to  disarm  these  potent 
"  germs  of  corruption  and  death." 


21 

Mr.  Folkard  is  of  opinion  that  the  sources  of  the  pollution 
of  river  waters,  besides  town  sewage,  in  England,  are  so 
numerous  and  varied  in  character,  that  they  cannot  be  cut  off, 
and,  consequently,  that  the  endeavor  to  purify  such  river 
waters  so  as  to  be  fit  for  drinking  purposes,  by  the  exclusion 
of  sewage  from  them,  is  futile ;  that  the  rivers  ought  to  be 
abandoned  as  sources  of  water  supply,  and  water  stored  or 
drawn  from  artesian  wells  be  used  altogether  for  drinking 
purposes. 

Engineers  Generally. 

Engineers  and  sanitarians  generally  in  England  differ  from 
him  in  this  opinion,  and  show  pretty  conclusively  that  he  is 
wrong  on  this  point ;  but  however  this  may  be,  any  applica- 
tion of  his  theory  to  the  conclusion  that  things  should  be  let  t 
to  drift  as  they  are  because  they  cannot  be  wholly  remedied,  is 
a  weak  point  in  argument  even  for  the  case  as  it  stands  in 
England,  and  no  point  at  all  in  any  argument  which  might 
come  up  on  this  matter  in  California.  For  our  streams  are 
not  yet  polluted  to  any  considerable  extent  in  the  way  we  are 
now  considering,  and  in  the  great  central  valley  of  the  State, 
at  least,  the  topography  is  such  as  to  shield  them  from  natural 
pollution  to  a  very  considerable  extent.  Our  question  here 
will  be — shall  the  streams  be  preserved  from  pollution,  so  that 
the  argument  of  bad-any-how-might-as-well-be-worse  can 
never  be  used  in  opposition  to  proper  sanitary  measures. 

Furthermore,  this  argument  in  favor  of  letting  things  drift 
as  custom  tends  is  answered  by  invoking  the  doctrine  of 
chances  brought  forward  by  Mr.  Folkard  himself  for  the  pur- 
pose of  parts  of  his  argument.  The  chances  of  bad  results 
are  greater  in  proportion  to  the  certainty  of  pollution.  That  is 
to  say,  waters  directly  polluted  from  the  zymotic  patient  by 
leading  sewage  into  them  are  much  more  certain  to  prove  poi- 
sonous to  persons  drinking  them  than  waters  which  may  have 
been  polluted  with  the  same  class  of  noxious  matter  carried 
into  them  by  the  washings  from  streets,  alleys,  cow  yards, 
manured  fields,  etc. 


22 

In  the  discussion  before  the  Institution  of  Civil  Engineers 
which  followed  the  reading  of  Mr.  Folkard's  paper  there  were 
eminent  men  of  learning  and  observation  who  differed  with 
him  upon  some  of  his  leading  conclusions,  as  well  as  others 
who  coincided  with  him  in  his  views. 

Baldwin  Latham. 

For  instance:  Mr.  Baldwin  Latham,  a  civil  engineer  of 
wide  experience  and  special  practice  in  sanitary  works,  main- 
tained that  there  was  evidence  to  show  that  river  waters  receiv- 
ing sewage  purified  themselves  of  their  organic  disease  germs 
in  running  less  than  the  50  to  100  miles  of  which  Mr.  Folkard 
spoke,  and  he  cited  the  case  of  Birmingham,  where  there  was  no 
cholera  in  1848-49,  taking  its  waters  for  domestic  use  from  the 
River  Tame  20  miles  down  stream  from  where  they  were  pol- 
luted by  the  sewage  of  Bilston,  Wolverhampton,  and  other 
places  where  the  disease  raged  violently. 

Disease  Propagation. 

If  I  mistake  not,  however,  the  force  of  argument  from  this 
instance  would  be  set  aside  by  the  recent,  perhaps  more 
recently  adopted,  theory  of  the  germ-in-air  propagation  of 
this  particular  disease,  and  the  conclusion  that  the  action  of 
the  atmosphere  being  required  to  develop  its  germs  the  dis- 
ease may  not  be  conveyed  in  water  charged  with  the  dejecta 
of  cholera  patients. 

However  this  may  be  though,  and  notwithstanding  the  fact 
that  there  is  some  evidence  that  poison  is  not  always  conveyed 
by  means  of  waters  polluted  at  localities  where  zymotic  diseases 
prevail  to  quarters  where  the  waters  are  used  for  domestic 
purposes,  and  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  there  are  still 
some  men  of  attainment  an$  observation  in  sanitary  matters 
who  contend  that  the  deposit  of  sewage  in  running  streams  is 
not  very  dangerous  to  health  and  comfort,  but  that  the  waters 
purify  themselves  of  the  disease  producing  matters  which  have 
been  put  into  them,  as  they  advance  on  their  course,  in  the 
literature  of  the  subject,  there  are  many  more  instances  cited 


23 

which  appear  to  prove  that  disease  is  conveyed  to  great  dis- 
tances in  running  water;  and,  as  I  have  said,  the  greater 
number  of  sanitarians — including  engineers,  doctors  of  medi- 
cine, chemists,  microscopists,  and  biologists  of  eminence,  and 
practical  observers  not  of  scientific  attainment — so  far  as  I  am 
able  to  judge  by  a  somewhat  extended  search  and  reading  of 
the  original  authorities,  now,  either  in  moderate  or  in  radically 
positive  terms  condemn  the  practice  of  polluting  the  waters 
of  running  streams  even  in  a  very  slight  degree  by  the  intro- 
duction of  crude  sewage  or  any  other  similar  matter  therein. 

The  fact  that  a  general  practice  yet  is  to  dispose  of  the 
sewage  of  towns  in  this  way  is  no  argument  in  its  favor  or 
against  the  conclusion  that  it  is  a  vile  and  filthy  practice, 
unworthy  of  the  age,  and  productive  of  a  vast  amount  of 
misery  and  death  to  the  people. 

A  very  general  practice,  to  this  day,  is  to  dispose  of  the 
noxious  offal  of  dwellings  in  unlined  pits  that  are  never 
cleaned  out,  situated  on  the  same  village  or  town  lot  whence 
drinking  waters  are  drawn  from  shallow  surface  wells  ;  yet  no 
fact  of  sanitary  science  is  more  conclusively  proven  than  that 
the  soil,  for  considerable  distances  around  such  pits,  is  impreg- 
nated with  the  matter  cast  into  them,  and  that  the  waters, 
even  those  found  below  an  apparently  impervious  "hardpan" 
substratum,  are  polluted  by  contamination,  and,  being  used  as 
potable  waters,  are  frequently  the  cause  of  diseases  of  the 
class  ranked  as  zymotic,  and  which  are  so  fatal. 

These  subjects  are  not  thoroughly  understood  by  sanita- 
rians, in  their  several  specialties  even.  There  are  undoubtedly 
remarkable  exceptions  to  be  noted,  as  I  have  before  said,  to 
the  rule  that  impregnated  waters  carry  disease  germs  great 
distances,  and  do  not  purify  themselves  ;  but  in  explanation 
of  these  apparent  exceptions,  it  is  to  be  remembered  :  First, 
that  they  are  in  cases  where  cholera  was  not  produced  by  the 
cause  spoken  of,  and  now  it  transpires  that  cholera  is  not  con- 
veyed in  the  water,  but  in  the  air,  and  :  Second,  that  although 
disease  may  be  shown  not  to  have  followed  the  drinking  of 


24 

waters  polluted  by  its  germs  at  a  distance  of  twenty  miles  or 
more  away  in  certain  instances,  this  may  not  be  evidence  that 
the  germs  have  been  destroyed  in  the  interim,  but  that  the 
conditions  necessary  for  their  development  in  the  persons  of 
the  population  where  imbibed,  may  not  have  been  present. 

And,  finally,  we  have  in  explanation  of  these  exceptional 
cases,  the  results  of  the  most  recent  investigations,  elsewhere 
given,  which  show  that  local  causes,  not  general,  sometimes 
purify  river  waters,  but  that  these  cases  are  rare. 

The  Difference  of  Opinion. 

As  accounting  in  a  great  degree  for  the  difference  of  opinion 
on  this  subject  in  the  countries  where  it  has  been  forced  to  the 
public  attention,  we  are  to  remember  that  the  move  to  stop  the 
pollution  of  the  streams  is  a  reform,  a  reform  against  an  estab- 
lished abuse  that  has  gradually  grown  up,  that  there  are  vast 
moneyed  interests  arrayed  from  selfish  motives  against  the 
reform  on  the  one  side  of  the  argument,  while  on  the  other  side 
are  those  actuated  purely  by  a  love  of  truth,  science,  and 
cleanliness,  and  an  interest  in  the  welfare  of  the  people  at  large. 

If  anything,  England  is  a  manufacturing  country.  Her  vast 
wealth  is  largely  invested  in  manufacturing  establishments  or 
enterprises  connected  therewith  or  dependent  thereon.  Manu- 
factories of  some  kinds  produce  vast  quantities  of  sewage  matter. 
Paper  mills,  cotton,  cloth,  and  woolen  mills,  bleaching  estab- 
lishments, dye  works,  chemical  works,  gas  works,  and  a  number 
of  others  being  about  the  most  prolific  of  such  putrescible  offal 
waters  and  wastes  calculated  to  pollute  waters  and  poison  river 
beds  and  banks. 

The  manufacturers  are  a  most  powerful  class;  they  are 
organized  much  as  the  hfdraulic  miners  are  in  this  State. 
Leading  members  of  Parliament  in  both  houses  are  said  to  be 
Manufacturing  Kings.  If  this  be  so,  and  we  can  well  believe  a 
good  deal  of  it,  we  have  an  explanation  of  the  fact  that  the 
reform  movement  has  made  but  slow  progress  in  that  country 
and  we  have  an  explanation  of  the  condition  of  things 
depicted  in  the  following  paragraph : 


25 

"  It  would  really  seem  that  although  the  whole  country  is  agreed 
"  that  the  death  rate  is  sensibly  increased  by  neglecting  the  condition 
"  of  our  streams,  no  government  is  strong  enough  to  revert  to  the 
"  law  of  the  Egyptians  and  say:  'Thou  shalt  not  defile  our  rivers.' 
"  Loss  of  life  would  appear  to  be  preferred  to  loss  of  trade,  and 
"  although  the  preference  may  be  reconciled  to  individual  interest,  it 
"  is  entirely  opposed  to  the  national  weal."  (Bailey  Denton,  Lectures, 
etc.,  p.  47.) 

And  again  (p.  181): 

"  The  influence  of  the  opposition  of  manufacturers  upon  the  past 
"  and  present  governments  has  resulted  in  a  temporary  respite,  and 
"  some  ground  has  been  lost  by  temporizing,  which  had  been  pre- 
"  viously  gained  by  slow  and  steady  steps;  but  when  saying  this  it  is 
"  impossible  to  evade  the  conclusion  that  the  perfect  and  permanent 
"  cleansing  of  sewage  will  be  sooner  or  later  insisted  upon  by  every 
"  voice  in  the  country,  and  by  no  persons  more  decidedly  than  by 
"  the  manufacturers  themselves." 

In  closing  this  subject,  notice  of  two  leading  opinions  in  our 
own  country  will  not  be  amiss,  although  they  are  not  so  late 
in  date  as  much  which  I  have  given  above. 

J.  P.  Kirkwood,  C.  E. 

In  1875  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Massachusetts 
enacted  a  law  "  to  provide  for  an  investigation  of  the  question  of 
the  use  of  running  streams  as  common  sewers  in  its  relation  to 
the  public  health'' 

By  this  law  the.  State  Board  of  Health  was  instructed  to 
carry  on  themselves,  or  through  their  agents,  an  investigation 
of  the  subject  of  "the  correct  method  of  drainage  and  sewerage 
"  of  the  cities  and  towns  of  the  commonwealth,  especially  with 
"  regard  to  the  pollution  of  the'  rivers,  estuaries,  and  ponds  by 
"  such  drainage  or  sewerage." 

On  this  general  point  condemnatory  of  the  practice  of 
depositing  sewage  in  the  streams,  Mr.  James  P.  Kirkwood, 
C.  E.,  said : 

"The  maintenance  of  the  purity  of  our  running  streams  has  been, 
"  in  the  United  States,  generally  neglected.  *  *  * 

"It  was  long  thought  that  sewage  was  destroyed  by  running  water, 
"  but  now  it  is  believed  by  chemists  to  be  all  but  indestructible  there." 


26 

"  The  poisons  may  be  so  largely  diluted  as  to  be  beyond  the  read- 
"  ings  of  analysis,  and  yet  they  may  be  sufficient,  when  fairly  pre- 
"sented  and  understood,  to  render  the  water,  by  reason  of  that 
"  knowledge,  not  merely  repulsive  or  suspicious,  but  more  or  less  dan- 
gerous for  family  use."  (Kept.  Mass.  Bd.  of  H.,  1876,  pp.  23-154.) 

Mr.  Kirkwood  is  a  Civil  Engineer  of  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,  of 
high  standing,  and  the  Board,  in  their  report,  say  of  him: 
"Mr.  Kirkwood  has  brought  to  the  work  a  rare  experience 
"and  a  thorough  knowledge  of  sanitary  engineering.  His 
"  conclusions  and  suggestions  are  fully  concurred  in  by  the 
"  Board/'  (Work  cited,  p.  9.) 

In  the  report  above  cited  is  a  paper  by  C.  F.  Folsom,  M.  D., 
Secretary  of  the  Board,  who  in  1876  investigated  the  matter 
of  sewage  disposal  in  Europe,  and  writes  concerning  that  part 
of  the  subject,  and  therein  occurs  the  following: 

"  Much  indeed  has  been  said  as  to  the  complete  self-purification  of 
"rivers  by  a  flow  of  a  few  dozen  miles.  No. such  power  exists.  The 
"solid  parts  are  deposited,  and  what  remains  looks  clear  and  bright, 
"especially  when  largely  diluted.  Chemical  changes  take  place  too— 
"sometimes  decomposition,  sometimes  putrefaction,  sometimes  simple 
"elective  combinations.  If  sewage  contain  the  germs  of  disease, 
"whatever  they  may  be,  no  agency  at  present  known,  except  a  suffi- 
^ciently  high  temperature,  will  efficiently  destroy  them.  Excessive 
"dilution  simply  diminishes  the  chances  of  danger  from  any  particular 
"tumblerfull." 

Without  attempting  to  be  at  all  thorough,  for  the  subject 
grows  upon  one's  hands  the  further  it  is  examined,  I  have 
endeavored  to  show  in  this  part  of  my  report,  by  citing  the 
opinions  and  conclusions  of  those  who  have  looked  into  the 
subject  in  a  thorough  manner  : 

That  house  and  town  sewage  is  a  noxious  matter  capable  of 
imparting  or  causing  the  most  deadly  diseases  when  taken 
into  the  system  in  very  moderate  quantities  even ; 

That  deposited  in  a  river,  estuary,  or  other  body  of  water 
(except  the  sea,  perhaps),  it  is  not  deprived  of  its  noxious 
qualities — it  is  not  destroyed,  but  dihitcd; 

That  streams  so  polluted  do  not  "purify  themselves,"  that 
the  sewage  is  not  "carried  away"  even,  but  that  the  solid 


27 

matters  of  the  sewage  settle  to  the  bottom  and  there  poison 
the  soil  of  the  channel  bed  and  banks,  and  that  much  animal 
organic  matter  (supposed  to  be  the  germs  of  disease,  or  asso- 
ciated with  such  germs,  or  capable  of  evolving  them,  or  of 
producing  conditions  under  which  disease  is  evolved,  it  matters 
not  which),  is  held  in  solution  in  the  water  and  is  only  very 
slowly  destroyed ; 

And,  hence,  that  any  pollution  of  a  stream  by  sewage 
matter  is  a  material  pollution ; 

That  public  opinion  is  being  formed  to  these  conclusions  in 
older  countries,  but  that  the  question  is  lulled  to  rest  there  and 
hushed  up,  and  the  reform  in  sewage  disposal  is  only  gradually 
progressing,  because  of  the  great  outlay  in  works  of  sewerage 
already  constructed  having  river  outfalls,  the  consequent  great 
expense  to  change  the  systems,  and  the  immense  moneyed 
interests  in  other  ways  arrayed  from  selfish  motives  against 
the  reform; 

And,  finally,  that  any  authority  undertaking  to  dispose  of 
sewage  by  depositing  it  in  a  stream,  even  one  whose  waters 
are  but  occasionally  used  and  by  a  small  number  of  people  only, 
are  assuming  a  responsibility  or  committing  an  act  for  which 
they  may,  in  the  near  future,  and  certainly  will,  before  many 
years  go  by,  in  some  form,  be  held  accountable,  at  least,  as 
having  erred. 

If  I  have  failed  in  adducing  evidence  to  substantiate  these 
views,  it  may  be  said  that  I  have  not  done  the  subject  justice 
in  my  selection  and  arrangement  of  it,  for  enough  may  be  had 
to  make  this  report  many  times  as  long  as  it  is,  and  from  the 
best  sources,  and  of  the  most  practical  kind. 


WHAT  SHALL  BE  DONE  WITH  SEWAGE? 


PART  II.   THE  APPLICATION  OF  SEWAGE  TO  LAND. 


"LAND   THE   PURIFIER   OF   LIQUID   SEWAGE." 

The  sewage  of  which  we  speak,  as  I  have  before  written,  is 
polluted  water — the  proportion  of  polluting  matter  being  small 
as  compared  to  that  of  the  water;  and  the  object  of  all  sewer- 
age work  should  be  to  dispose  of  the  noxious  matter  so  that 
at  least  it  may  do  no  harm,  if,  indeed,  it  be  not  made  useful, 
and  to  restore  the  water  to  a  state  approximating  purity. 

Cultivated  land  is  the  natural,  as  it  is  the  best,  practicable 
medium  for  the  purification  of  the  noxious  matters  which  pol- 
lute the  waters  of  sewage. 

Land  of  suitable  soil,  properly  prepared,  with  the  environ- 
ments of  locality  and  climate  favorable,  affords,  to  judicious 
use,  all  of  the  essential  conditions  under  which  the  chemical 
changes  necessary  for  the  purification  of  sewage  waters  take 
place,  in  the  most  presentable  form  for  the  purpose,  that  we 
can  hope  to  find  in  practice. 

The  Action  of  Soil  and  Air. 

The  immediate  object  to  be  held  in  view  is  to  prevent  decom- 
position or  arrest  fermentation  of  the  organic  matters  contained 
in  the  sewage,  and  thus  forestall  the  development  of  organic 
germs,  or  the  conditions  under  which  they  may  be  developed, 
and  the  giving  off  of  foul  odors. 

Moisture  to  saturation  being  an  essential  condition  to  this 
process  of  decomposition  or  fermentation,  and  subsequent 


30 

development,  the  removal  of  such  excessive  moisture  deprives 
the  matter  of  the  environment  necessary  to  the  baneful  action. 

And  again,  the  action  of  the  air  upon  the  particles  of  matter 
is  essential  to  the  rapid  change  which  it  is  desired  to  produce, 
and  dispersion  or  separation  of  these  particles  is  essential  to 
the  free  access  of  the  air. 

In  applying  sewage  to  land,  then,  under  the  conditions  and 
in  the  manner  heretofore  spoken  of  as  most  favorable  to  a  suc- 
cessful issue,  the  exact  conditions  are  produced  which  best 
admit  of  those  natural  actions  which  we  want  to  help  along; 
the  putrescible  particles  are  arrested  in  their  course  or  adhere 
to  the  granules  of  earth  which  absorb  the  moisture  from  them, 
thus  arresting  decomposition,  and  hold  them  subject  to  the 
action  of  the  air,  thus  effecting  their  oxidation;  and  finally, 
vegetation  afterwards  assimilates  the  resultant  matters,  and  so 
the  change  becomes  complete. 

Conditions  Essential  to  Success. 

From  these  considerations  we  see  at  once  that  conditions 
essential  to  the  efficiency  of  this  mode  of  disposing  of  sewage 
are  a  free,  absorbing,  and  well  aerated  soil,  or,  at  least,  in  each 
case,  an  application  of  sewage  not  in  excess  of  the  capacity  of 
the  soil,  freely  and  promptly  to  absorb  or  take  into  its  pores 
the  liquid  and  suspended  solid  matters,  without  resulting  in 
complete  saturation  and  without  leaving  a  considerable  scum 
or  precipitate  on  the  surface,  at  least  a  fair  depth  to  the  soil, 
and  such  under-drainage,  natural  or  artificial,  as  will  promptly 
lead  away  superfluous  moisture  and  produce  aeration  of  the 
soil;  and,  finally,  cultivation  of  the  soil  and  plant  growth 
thereon  at  least  annually  on  at  not  distant  intervals. 

Some  Authorities. 

As  I  have  before  written,  this  question  of  sewage  disposal 
has  attracted  a  great  deal  of  attention  in  England,  and  has 
been  the  subject  of  a  number  of  practical  and  scientific  investi- 
gations and  inquiries,  carried  out  under  authority  of  law,  or 
under  the  patronage  or  guidance  of  societies  of  arts  or  science. 


Without  exception,  so  far  as  my  examination  goes,  and  I 
have  diligently  traced  the  course  of  these  inquiries  in  the 
original  reports  or  publications,  wherever  the  question  of  the 
disposal  of  sewage  has  been  the  one  at  issue  and  it  has  been 
fairly  met,  the  conclusion  arrived  at  by  such  inquiries  has  been 
either  unqualifiedly  in  favor  of  irrigation  in  all  cases  where 
possible,  or  in  all  cases  where  convenient. 

I  have  been  unable  to  find  one  authoritative  verdict  against 
it.  Differences  of  opinion  are  only  in  the  degree  of  favor 
shown  it,  or  as  to  the  necessity  of  precipitating  the  solid  matter 
before  using  the  liquid  on  the  land,  or  as  to  the  area  of  land 
necessary  for  a  fixed  amount  of  sewage,  and  as  to  the  economy 
of  the  plan  of  disposal — taking  into  account  the  high  price  of 
land  and  other  complicating  circumstances. 

Land  the  Proper  Purifier. 

I  present  here  a  few  of  the  many  unqualified  decisions  upon 
which  the  views  I  have  advanced  have  been  founded.  Selecting 
only  those  which  come  from  some  authoritative  or  specially 
high  source,  I  remark  that  individual  opinions  of  civil  engineers, 
sanitarians,  chemists  of  high  standing,  and  town  authorities 
might  be  quoted  by  the  chapter,  which  coincide  with  them. 

First  come  some  authoritative  opinions  as  to  the  efficiency 
of  irrigation  as  a  means  of  disposal  of  sewage. 

The  Sewage  of  Towns  Commission. 

The  Sewage  of  Towns  Commissioners  of  England  in  their 
first  report  (1858)  showed  that  they  considered  that  the  irriga- 
tion of  land  (in  some  cases  supplemented  by  other  processes) 
was  the  best  means  of  preventing  the  pollution  of  streams  by 
sewage. 

And  in  their  third  report  (1865),  p.  3,  they  state  in  the  most 
emphatic  terms  that  "  the  right  way  to  dispose  of  town  sewage 
"  is  to  apply  it  continually  to  land,  and  it  is  only  by  such 
"  application  that  the  pollution  of  rivers  can  be  avoided."  (Cor- 
field,  "Treatment  and  Utilization  of  Sewage,"  p.  231.) 


32 

The  First  Rivers  Pollution  Commission. 

The  First  Rivers  Pollution  Commissioners,  in  their  third 
report,  submit  the  following  as  a  conviction  arrived  at  by  them 
after  their  extensive  and  thorough  inquiry  into  the  subject, 
"  that  the  right  way  to  dispose  of  town  sewage  is  to  apply  it 
"  continually  to  land,  and  it  is  only  by  such  application  that 
"  the  pollution  of  rivers  can  be  avoided." 

The  Local  Government  Board  Sewage  Committee. 

The  Committee  of  the  Local  Government  Board  on  Sewage 
Disposal,  in  their  report  of  1876,  indorse  the  above  conclusion 
of  the  Rivers'  Pollution  Commission  in  favor  of  irrigation,  say- 
ing :  "  They  (the  conclusions)  have  as  much  value  now  as  at 
the  time  when  made  "  (p.  1 16).  And  as  one  of  their  own  con- 
victions they  say,  "that  town  sewage  can  best  and  most 
"  cheaply  be  disposed  of  and  purified  by  the  process  of  land 
"  irrigation  for  agricultural  purposes,  when  local  conditions 
"  are  favorable  to  its  application  "  (p.  xiii  of  report). 

Ex.  Com.  Society  of  Arts  Conference,  1876. 

The  Executive  Committee  of  the  Society  of  Arts  Confer- 
ence, in  summing  up  the  results  which  seemed  to  them  to  have 
been  established  by  that  extended  and  interesting  inquiry  and 
discussion,  give  precedence  to  irrigation  as  the  best  means  of 
purifying  sewage,  in  the  following  words : 

"  (i)  In  certain  localities,  where  land  at  a  reasonable  price  can 
"  be  procured  with  favorable  natural  gradients,  with  soil  of  a  suitable 
"  quality  and  in  sufficient  quantity,  a  sewage  farm,  if  properly  con- 
"  ducted,  is  apparently  the  best  method  of  disposing  of  water-carried 
"  sewage."  (Jour.  Soc.  of  Arts,  vol.  xxiv,  p.  737,  June  16,  1876.) 


In  1862  a  committee  was  appointed  by  resolution  of  Parlia- 
ment to  examine  this  matter,  take  testimony,  and  report.  It 
was  called  the  "  Select  Committee  on  the  Sewage  of  Towns." 
The  conclusions  arrived  at  by  this  committee  are  so  very 
instructive  and  pointed  that  I  present  them  entire  : 

"  i.  The  evidence  proves  that  sewage  contains  the  elements  of 
"  every  crop  which  is  grown. 


33 

"  2.  That  as  compared  with  solid  manure  there  are  advantages  in 
"  the  application  of  sewage  manure  to  land. 

"  3.  The  evidence  proves  that  town  sewage  contains  a  large  amount 
"  of  heat,  which  in  itself  is  beneficial  in  stimulating  vegetation. 

"4.  The  evidence  further  proves  that  one  ton  (224  gallons)  of 
"  average  town  sewage  contains  an  amount  of  manure  which,  if  ex- 
"  tracted  and  dried,  would  be  worth  a  little  over  2d.,  taking  Peruvian 
"  guano  (at  us.  per  ton  as  the  standard). 

"6.     A  judicious  use  of  town  sewage  permanently  improves  land. 

"7.  Sewage  may  be  applied  to  common  grass,  Italian  rye-grass, 
"  and  also  to  roots  and  grain  crops  with  great  advantage,  dressings 
"  with  sewage  hastening  vegetation. 

"  8.  Sewage-grown  grass  has  a  great  effect  in  increasing  the  quan- 
11  tity  and  richness  of  the  milk  of  cows,  as  well  as  improving  the  con- 
"  dition  of  the  cattle,  which  prefer  sewaged  grass  to  all  others. 

"  9.  The  earth  possesses  the  power  of  absorbing  from  sewage  all 
"  the  manure  which  it  contains,  if  the  dressings  in  volume  are  pro- 
"  portioned  to  the  depth  and  quality  of  the  soil. 

"  10.  Those  who  use  sewage  should  have  full  control  over  it,  that 
"  they  may  apply  it  when  and  in  what  quantities  they  may  require  it. 

"  ii.  Heavy  dressings  of  sewage  (8,000  to  9,000  tons  per  acre), 
"  are  wasteful ;  less  dressings  (500  to  2,000  tons  per  acre),  when  more 
"  carefully  applied,  produce  better  results.  The  enormous  dressings 
"  recommended  by  some  witnesses  would  be  agriculturally  useless,  as 
"  the  sewage  would  flow  over  and  off  the  surface  unchanged. 

"  12.  When  the  sewage  of  our  cities,  towns,  and  villages  is  utilized 
"  to  the  best  advantage  over  suitable  areas,  little  or  no  imported  or 
"  manufactured  manures  would  be  required  in  such  districts. 

"  13.  Sewage  may  be  applied  with  advantage  to  every  description 
"  of  soil  which  is  naturally  or  artificially  drained. 

"14.  The  most  profitable  returns,  as  in  the  case  of  all  other 
"  manures,  will  be  obtained  when  sewage  is  judiciously  applied  to  the 
"  best  class  of  soils. 

"15.  Sewage  may  be  advantageously  applied  to  land  throughout 
"  the  entire  year. 

"  1 6.  Some  matters  used  in  manufactures  which  enter  town  sewers, 
"  such  as  waste  acids,  would  be  in  themselves  injurious  if  applied  to 
"  vegetation ;  but  bearing  as  they  do  so  small  a  proportion  to  the 
"  entire  volume  of  sewage  into  which  they  are  turned,  they  are  ren- 
"  dered  harmless. 

"  17.  Fresh  sewage  at  the  outfall  of  the  sewers,  even  in  the  hot- 
"  test  weather,  is  very  slightly  offensive ;  and  if  applied  to  the  land  in 
"  this  state  in  such  dressings  as  can  at  once  be  absorbed  by  the  earth, 
"  fear  of  nuisance  need  not  be  felt,  as  the  soil  possesses  the  power  to 
"  deodorise  and  separate  from  liquids  all  the  manure  which  they 
"  contain. 

"  1 8.  Large  dressings  and  an  overtaxed  soil  may  pollute  surface 
"  streams,  subsoils,  and  shallow  wells. 

"  19.  Solid  manure  cannot  be  manufactured  from  town  sewage 
"  with  commercially  profitable  results." 


34 

The  Massachusetts  State  Board  of  Health. 

The  Massachusetts  State  Board  of  Health,  at  the  close  of 
a  most  extended  report  on  the  whole  sewage  question,  cover- 
ing upwards  of  four  hundred  pages,  made  after  careful  research 
by  men  of  ability — one  of  whom,  Dr.  C.  F.  Folsom,  made 
an  extended  trip  to  Europe  for  the  purpose  of  studying  the 
question — advance,  as  a  primary  recommendation,  the  follow- 
ing : 

"  I.  That  no  city  or  town  shall  be  allowed  to  discharge  sewage 
"  into  any  watercourse  or  pond,  without  first  purifying  it  according  to 
"  the  best  process  at  present  known,  and  which  consists  in  irriga- 
tion," etc.  *  *  *  *  *  * 

"  VI.  That  irrigation  be  adopted,  at  first  experimentally,  in  those 
"  places  where  some  process  of  purification  of  sewage  is  necessary ; 
"  and  that  cities  and  towns  be  authorized  by  law  to  take  such  land 
"  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  purpose." 

And  they  say,  before  advancing  this  recommendation,  that : 

"  In  public  institutions,  prisons,  asylums,  etc.,  it  is  our  opinion 
"  that  the  sewage  can  be  utilized  and  purified  by  irrigation  to  great 
"  advantage,  and  this  disposal  of  it  should  be  made  when  the  land 
"  can  be  got." 

The  First  Rivers  Pollution  Commission,  in  their  report, 
1867,  said  : 

"  Sewage  interception  is  always  practical.  Where  it  can  be  applied 
"  fresh  to  land  there  is  least  nuisance,  and  least  cost  to  the  rate 
"  payers.  *******  NO  arrangements  for  treating 
"  sewage  are  satisfactory,  except  its. direct  application  to  land  for  agri- 
"  cultural  purposes." 

Speaking  of  this  opinion,  Dr.  Folsom  writes  : 

"  This  statement  may  fairly  be  taken  as  the  result  of  twenty-five 
"years'  experience  in  England"  (that  is,  previous  to  1867);  "and 
"  the  'official  opinion,'  if  the  term  may  be  used,  has  not  changed 
"  since  that  time."  (Down  to  1876.)  *  *  *  *  "Noauthori- 
"  tative  body,  so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  learn,  has  declared  itself 
"  as  fully  satisfied  with  any  other  process  for  the  purification  of  sew- 
"  age  than  that  of  irrigation."  (Kept.  Mass.  State  Bd.  of  H.,  1876, 
p.  299.) 

Sanitary  Influence  of  a  Sewage  Farm. 

Lands  irrigated  with  sewage  are  not  productive  of  sickness 
to  the  residents  upon  them  or  in  their  neighborhood,  as  is 


35 

attested  by  the  following  evidence,  culled  from  a  great  mass 
to  the  same  effect,  scattered  through  many  official  documents, 
and,  so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  find,  there  is  no  authorita- 
tive evidence  to  the  contrary. 

The  First  Rivers  Pollution  Commission. 

The  Rivers  Pollution  Commissioners,  in  their  first  report, 
say: 

"  We  do  not  recommend  irrigation  for  the  abatement  of  the  town 
"  sewage  nuisance  without  having  made  ample  inquiry  into  any  risk 
"  to  health  which  may  be  incurred  by  the  establishment  of  sewage 
"  meadows  in  the  neighborhood  of  towns.  Such  inquiries  have  been 
*  made  at  Edinburgh,  Croydon,  Norwood,  and  Barking,  where  irri- 
'  gation  has  been  carried  on  long  enough  and,  near  Edinburgh,  at 
'  least,  in  a  sufficiently  careless  manner  to  have  certainly  developed 
'  whatever  elements  of  mischief  may  be  inherent  in  the  practice. 
'  Nowhere  have  we  found  instances  of  ill  health  that  are  properly 
'  attributable  to  malaria  or  other  causes  due  to  irrigation." 

Dr.  Littlejohn,  Medical  Officer  of  Health  to  Edinburgh,  in 
evidence  before  the  Commission,  said  he  entertained  a  preju- 
dice against  the  maintenance  of  sewage  meadows  so  near  the 
city,  but  that  he  had  not  been  able  to  connect  any  ill  health 
of  the  city  with  the  meadows  as  its  cause. 

Professor  Christison,  President  of  the  Royal  Society  of 
Edinburgh,  speaking  of  these  meadows,  in  an  address  at  the 
meeting  of  the  Association  for  the  Encouragement  of  Social 
Science  at  Edinburgh,  in  October,  1863,  said  : 

"  Many  years  ago  my  own  prejudices  were  all  against  the  meadows; 
"  I  have  been  compelled  to  surrender  them.  I  am  satisfied  that 
"  neither  typhus,  nor  enteric  fever,  nor  dysentery,  nor  cholera,  is  to 
"  be  encountered  in  or  around  them,  whether  in  epidemic  or  non- 
"  epidemic  seasons,  more  than  in  any  other  agricultural  district  of 
"  the  neighborhood." 

He  then  gives  certain  facts  ascertained  by  his  investigation 
of  the  subject,  upon  which  he  has  bcised  his  conclusion,  and 
says  :  "  I  think  it  right,  in  reference  to  the  late  introduction  of 
"  the  Craigentinny  system  of  irrigation  into  the  vicinity  of 
"  other  large  towns,  that  these  precise  facts  should  be  known." 

In  1870,  this  Dr.  Christison  writes  :  "  I  have  nothing  either 


36 

"to  add  to  or  subtract  from  the  above  quotation  from  my 
"Social  Science  address  in  1863." 

Then  follows  a  mass  of  other  evidence  of  like  import  from 
men  competent  to  observe  closely  and  draw  valuable  conclu- 
sions, that  was  collected  by  the  Commission,  from  which  we 
are  bound  to  conclude  that  they  could  have  come  to  no  other 
conclusion. 

The  Second  Rivers  Pollution  Commission. 

The  fourth  report  of  the  Rivers  Pollution  Commission 
made,  be  it  remembered,  by  entirely  different  individuals,  as 
heretofore  explained,  contains  further  evidence  and  expression 
of  opinion  to  the  same  point. 

Dr.  Littlejohn  again  gives  testimony  with  respect  to 
the  healthfulness  of  the  neighborhood  of  the  Craigentinny 
Meadows,  and  after  speaking  of  the  general  good  health  of 
the  people  of  Restelrig,  which  is  surrounded  by  these  meadows, 
he  says  : 

"I  expected  that  the  first  part  of  Edinburgh  (Regent  Terrace 
"and  Carleton  Terrace,  on  the  Calton  Hill),  against  which  the  wind 
"  blowing  over  these  meadows  impinges,  would  have  exhibited  evi- 
"  dence  of  infection  in  the  shape  of  cholera  or  typhoid  fever,  but  I 
"  have  totally  failed  to  find  it  so." 

Speaking  of  the  health  of  the  soldiers  at  the  neighboring 
barracks,  he  says:  "  No  injurious  effect  is  produced  by  the 
"  meadows  which  is  perceptible  in  the  state  of  their  health." 

The  Commission  say  that  there  is  no  evidence  of  the  meadows 
producing  ill  health,  and  much  to  the  effect  that  they  do  not 
have  any  such  influence. 

It  is  to  be  remarked  that  these  meadows  are  frequently 
spoken  of  in  the  literature  of  sewage  irrigation  as  an  exam- 
ple of  very  careless  management,  and  bad  arrangement,  and 
that  the  air  in  their  neighborhood  is  oftentimes  very  offensive 
to  the  olfactory  organs. 

The  Commission  made  particular  inquiry  as  to  the  health  of 
cows  fed  upon  sewage-produced  grass  from  these  meadows  as 
well  as  others,  and  in  this  fourth  report  I  find  amongst  other 


37 

evidence  on  this  point,  the  following  from  Dr.  Littlejohn,  the 
medical  officer  of  health.     He  says: 

"  The  cows  in  Edinburgh  are  chiefly  fed  with  grass  that  is  grown 
"  on  the  Craigentinny  Meadows.  I  have  thought  that  there  might 
"  be  objection  to  feeding  cows  upon  grass  so  grown,  because  I  was  of 
"  opinion  that  such  grass  might  be  of  inferior  quality;  but  practically 
"  I  have  failed  to  detect  any  bad  effects  resulting  from  the  use  of  such 
"  grass." 

He  then  goes  on  to  specify  at  length  the  character  of  dis- 
eases he  would  have  looked  for,  and  speaks  of  their  remarkable 
absence,  as  shown  by  inspection  and  dissection  of  the  animals, 
closing  with  the  following-: 

"  The  practice  of  keeping  cows  in  Edinburgh  has  prevailed  from 
"time  immemorial.  If  there  had  been  anything  in  the  idea  that 
"  sewage  grass  would  lead  indirectly  to  entozoic  disease,  it  has  had 
"  plenty  of  time  to  develop  itself,  and  Edinburgh  is  not  only  the  seat 
"  of  a  great  medical  school,  but  medical  observation  is  carried  to  the 
"  highest  point  in  Edinburgh,  so  that  it  could  not  fail  of  being  detected." 

Committee  of  the  Royal  Agricultural  Society. 

In  1879,  two  prizes,  each  of  the  value  of  one  hundred 
pounds  (sterling),  were  offered  for  the  best  managed  sewage 
farms  in  England  and  Wales,  by  the  Mansion  House  Com- 
mittee, in  connection  with  the  London  International  Exhibi- 
tion of  the'  Society,  and  these  prizes  were  accepted  by  the 
Council. 

A  committee,  consisting  of  Mr.  Baldwin  Latham,  civil 
engineer,  Clare  S.  Read,  and  Thomas  H.  Thursfield,  was 
appointed  to  examine  the  farms  entered  for  the  prizes,  and 
their  management,  and  report  thereon. 

The  report  of  this  committee  is  one  of  great  interest  and 
value,  covering  eighty  pages  octavo,  closely  printed  matter. 
I  take  one  extract  for  presentation  here,  hoping  to  embody  in 
an  appendix,  at  a  future  day,  a  summary  of  the  practical 
information  contained  in  this  and  other  similar  papers. 

In  concluding,  the  Committee  say  : 

"  With  respect  to  the  sanitary  aspect  of  sewage  farming,  the  above 
"  table  will  show  the  several  particulars  which  have  been  collected  in 


38 

"  reference  to  the  farms  during  the  period  they  have  been  in  opera- 
"  tion,  the  number  of  persons  either  living  or  working  on  the  farms, 
"  the  number  of  children  residing  on  the  farms,  and  the  number  of 
"  deaths  which  have  occurred. 

"An  examination  of  this  table  will  show  that  the  rate  of  mortality 
"  on  an  average  of  the  number  of  years  which  these  farms  have  been 
"  in  operation  does  not  exceed  three  per  thousand  per  annum.  This 
"  is  a  very  low  rate,  but  in  all  probability  it  may  not  be  lower 
"  than  would  be  found  in  an  equal  number  of  selected  lives  taken 
"  from  an  agricultural  district.  The  results  of  the  sanitary  inquiry 
"  show  that  sewage  farming  is  not  detrimental  to  life  or  health." 
*********** 

"  Sewage  farming  is  becoming  an  important  agricultural  feature  in 
"the  country,  there  being  at  the  present  time  about  one  hundred 
"such  farms  in  operation."  (Jour.  Royal  Agricultural  Soc.,  vol.  xvi, 
2d  series,  pp.  1-80.) 

This  last  testimony  and  opinion  is  important  as  being  of 
recent  dat'e,  and  the  result  of  a  systematic  inquiry  into  the  sub- 
ject, from  the  agricultural  standpoint. 

I  refrain  from  presenting  more  evidence  on  this  point,  be- 
cause, with  what  is  to  be  said  hereafter  about  proper  drainage, 
this  ought  to  be  enough. 

SOME   AUTHORITIES. 
Mr.  Bailey  Denton. 

Mr.  Bailey  Denton,  one  of  the  oldest  and  first  sanitary 
engineers  in  Great  Britain,  in  closing  a  series  of  lectures  (the 
printed  reports  of  which  cover  360  large  octavo  pages)  delivered 
at  the  Royal  School  of  Military  Engineering,  at  Chatham,  in 
1876,  on  the  subject  of  sanitary  engineering  generally,  draws 
the  first  of  twelve  main  conclusions  in  the  following  language : 

"I.  That  the  liquid  refuse  of  towns,  villages,  hamlets,  institutions, 
"and  dwellings,  can  only  be  continuously,  effectually,  and  econom- 
"  ically  cleansed  and  rendered  legally  admissible  into  inland  rivers 
"by  application  to  land."  (Work  cited,  p.  351.) 

Then  follows  nine  conclusions  relating  to  the  subject  as  pre- 
sented in  England — by  the  complications  of  high  prices  of 
lands,  numerous  manufactories,  sewerage  works  already  con- 
structed, rivers  already  polluted — which  have  no  bearing  to 


39 

our  present  case  here,  and  then  we  come  to  the  eleventh  con- 
clusion, which  is  as  follows : 

"XL  Land  receiving  sewage  should  be  most  carefully  prepared  to 
"distribute  it  while  in  a  fresh  condition.  All  half  and  half  measures 
" result  sooner  or  later  in  river  pollution,  and  loss  to  the  rate-payers." 

And  in  speaking  of  land  which  is  suitable  for  the  reception 
of  sewage,  he  says:  "Always  assuming  that  it  is  naturally  or 
"  artificially  well  underdrained." 

Mr.   C.  N.  Bazalgette. 

In  closing  one  of  the  most  notable  papers  upon  this  Sewage 
Question  which  has  appeared  of  late  years,  and  which  was  read 
before  the  Institution  of  Civil  Engineers,  London,  in  1877,  the 
author,  Mr.  Charles  Normann  Bazalgette,  laid  down  as  a 
primary  conclusion  for  the  discussion  of  the  Society,  the  fol- 
lowing: "That  where  land  can  be  reasonably  acquired,  irriga- 
tion is  the  best  and  most  satisfactorily  known  system  for  the 
disposal  of  sewage." 


And  in  the  course  of  his  paper  he  says : 


"In  broad  irrigation  it  is  not  merely  the  surface  contact  of  the 
'  sewage  with  the  soil  assisted  by  the  oxidizing  influence  of  vegetation, 
'which  conduces  to  the  resolution  of  sewage  into  its  innocuous 
'elements,  but  above  all  its  passage  through  that  aerated  earth  filter 
'which  intervenes  between  the  surface  and  the  subsoil  (water)  drain- 
'age."  (Minutes  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Institution  of  Civil  Engi- 
neers, Vol.  XLIII,  pp.  105-160.) 

Mr.  W.  Crookes. 

In  discussing  Mr.  Bazalgette's  paper,  Mr.  W.  Crookes,  one  of 
his  principal  opponents,  "who,  for  some  years,  had  made  this 
subject  his  special  study,"  and  who  did  not  agree  with  Mr.  B 
in  others  of  his  conclusions,  nor  fully  even  in  this  one,  said : 

"As  a  process  which  numbers  many  and  most  zealous — not  to  say 
"occasionally  intolerant — advocates,  I  first  refer  to  irrigation.  No  one 
"  can  dispute  that  earth  has  a  wonderfully  deodorizing  power,  which 
"increases  the  more  finely  the  soil  is  pulverized  and  subdivided,  and 
"  the  more  thoroughly  it  gives  passage  to  the  air.  The  fcecal  matters 
"  and  other  impurities  attach  themselves  to  the  surfaces  of  the  particles 


40 

"  of  earth  by  a  kind  of  cohesive  attraction,  and  in  this  state  are  readily 
"  attacked  by  the  oxygen  of  the  air.  Their  organic  carbon  becomes 
"carbonic  acid;  their  nitrogen  is  converted  into  nitrous  or  nitric  acid, 
"which  unites  with  lime,  magnesia,  and  other  basic  elements  present." 

He  then  goes  on  to  speak  of  the  unsuitableness  of  some  kinds 
of  land,  and  the  difficulty  of  securing  land  for  this  purpose  in 
many  parts  of  England,  together  with  the  limited  variety  of 
crops  to  which  sewage  waters  can  be  advantageously  applied, 
and  concludes,  while  admitting  the  efficiency  and  value  of 
irrigation  as  a  process  for  the  purification  of  sewage  under 
favorable  circumstances,  that,  owing  to  the  absence  of  these 
circumstances  in  most  cases,  the  method  cannot  be  looked  to 
as  one  solving  the  sewage  problem  for  England. 

The  original  paper  covers  fifty-five  closely  printed  octavo 
pages,  and  considers  the  question  from  every  standpoint,  as  a 
review  of  the  experience  had  and  published  up  to  that  date. 
The  discussion  which  followed  was  participated  in  by  a  number 
of  engineers  and  scientists  of  good  standing,  the  report  of 
which  covers  ninety  similar  pages ;  and  the  correspondence  on 
the  subject,  appearing  in  the  following  volume,  covers  forty-five 
additional  pages. 

The  opinions  quoted  above  fairly  represent  those  of  the 
participants  in  this  discussion,  so  far  as  expressed  on  this  head 
of  irrigation,  the  one  being  outspoken  in  favor  of  irrigation  as 
a  means  of  disposal,  and  as  probably  the  chief  means  to  be 
looked  to  in  the  country,  the  other  scarcely  less  favorable  to 
irrigation  in  itself,  but  asserting  it  to  be  inapplicable  in  a  great 
majority  of  cases  in  England,  because  of  peculiar  local  circum- 
stances. 

Prof.  W.  H.  Corfield. 

The  most  complete  authority  on  the  subject  of  sewage 
purification,  up  to  the  time  of  its  publication  (1871),  is  the 
work  of  Prof.  Corfield.  After  an  exhaustive  review  of  the 
subject,  in  which  he  collates  a  vast  amount  of  evidence  from 
practical  experience,  a  reading  of  which  is  most  impressive,  he 
advances  his  chief  conclusion  in  the  following  words : 


41 

"(a)  That  by  careful  and  well  conducted  sewage  irrigation, 
"  especially  with  the  application  of  moderate  quantities  per  acre,  the 
"  purification  of  the  whole  liquid  refuse  of  a  town  is  practically  per- 
"  feet,  and  has  been  insured  in  cases  where  it  was  not  at  all  the  object 
"of  the  agriculturist;  and  that  it  is  the  only  process  known  by  which 
"that  purification  can  be  effected  on  a  large  or  on  a  small  scale."  (p. 
270.) 

And  at  the  end  of  a  chapter  on  the  "Influence  of  Sewage 
Farming  on  the  Public  Health,"  after  adducing  very  interest- 
ing and  pointed  evidence  to  the  effect  that  the  health  of  people 
living  on  and  near  sewage  farms,  so  far  from  being  bad  or 
worse  than  that  of  people  in  general  living  on  agricultural 
lands,  is  in  notable  cases  better,  the  author  says : 

"We  have  good  reason  to  expect  that  it  will  be  found  to  be  the 
"case,  that  the  utilization  of  the  sewage  of  towns  on  the  land 
"  near  them,  while  preventing  the  pollution  of  drinking  water,  and 
"  the  spread  thereby  of  cholera  and  typhoid  fever,  will  at  the  same 
"  time  maintain  the  purity  of  the  atmosphere  around  and  about  the 
"  town,  and  the  result  will  be,  especially  when  combined  with  that 
"  produced  by  the  increased  demand  for  labor  and  the  more  plentiful 
"supply  of  food,  a  diminution  of  the  general  death-rate."  (p.  283.) 

CAUSES   OF   OPPOSITION   TO   IRRIGATION. 

Where  the  use  of  sewage  waters  in  irrigation  has  failed  to 
prove  an  efficient  means  of  disposing  of  them,  or  of  so  far 
purifying  them  as  to  render  them  as  fit  to  be  put  into  rivers  as 
the  drainage  waters  from  any  highly  cultivated,  stocked,  or 
manured  farm  lands,  it  is  asserted  upon  the  highest  authority, 
and  generally  acceded  to,  that  such  result  is  due  to  one  or 
more  of  five  causes: 

The  quality  of  sewage  applied  has  been  too  great  for  the 
land  irrigated  under  the  immediate  and  surrounding  circum- 
stances ; 

The  soil  of  the  land  has  been  radically  unsuited  for  the  pur- 
pose, or  it  has  not  been  properly  prepared  for  such  use; 

The  manner  of  application  has  been  careless  or  from  other 
cause  needlessly  inefficient; 

Sewage  irrigation  has  been  practiced  on  quite  a  large  scale  in  England  since  about 
1853,  when  the  Rugby  sewage  farm  was  established.  There  are  now  upwards  of 
one  hundred  localities  where  towns  and  cities  thus  dispose  of  their  drainage,  and 
the  number  is  increasing  rapidly. 


42 

The  land  has  been  kept  continuously  in  use  for  sewage 
purification,  without  cultivation  and  growth  of  crops,  for  too 
long  a  period  of  time;  or, 

The  sewage  itself  has  been  exceptionally  foul  and  full  of 
putrescible  matter,  and  has  not  been  treated  or  defecated 
before  application  to  the  land. 

These  Causes  Might  Operate  Anywhere. 

The  above  causes  of  failure  are  such  as,  without  proper 
knowledge  and  care,  are  liable  to  recur  at  any  point  where 
irrigation  is  resorted  to  as  a  means  of  disposal  and  purification 
of  sewage,  and  of  course  are  to  be  guarded  against  in  the 
selection  and  preparation  of  lands  and  the  subsequent  use 
thereof  for  the  purpose. 

I  have  already  cited  some  authorities  which  bear  on  this 
point  and  will  only  call  attention  to  one  other:  Mr.  Baldwin 
Latham,  an  English  civil  engineer  who  has  had  much  experi- 
ence in  sanitary  work  and  written  a  work  of  merit  on  the 
subject,  at  a  meeting  of  the  Association  of  Sanitary  Engineers 
held  at  Merton  in  1879,  speaking  of  the  sewage  disposal  works 
at  Croyden,  where  the  sewage  from  a  town  of  17,000  people  is 
put  on  to  28  acres  of  land  for  filtration,  after  the  solid  matter 
in  suspension  has  been  precipitated  from  it  in  tanks,  said : 

"  In  fact,  if  the  sewage  was  not  seen  nobody  would  find  fault  with 
"  it.  The  only  objection  he  had  found  in  treating  sewage  was  entirely 
"  one  of  sentiment.  When  people  saw  sewage,  or  knew  it  was  near 
"  them,  they  thought  that  there  must  be  an  offensive  smell.  He  had 
"  never  found  any  great  nuisance  arising  from  a  sewage  farm  if  it  was 
"  only  moderately  well  conducted."  (Proceedings  of  the  Association 
of  Sanitary  Engineers,  Vol.  VI,  p.  104.) 

We  should  remember  that  it  is  the  solid  matter  in  suspen- 
sion and  in  solution  which,  being  allowed  to  stand  long  enough, 
decomposes  and  becomes  offensive;  that  earth  is  the  best 
known  agent  to  check  this  decomposition;  that  the  water  is 
the  carrier,  simply,  of  the  other  substances  composing  the  sew- 
age; that  if  the  soil  is  supplied  with  this  matter  in  proper 
quantity,  and  is  properly  under  drained,  so  that  it  dops  not  at 


43 

.  any  time  become  water-logged,  the  result  is  simply  an  applica- 
tion of  the  particles  liable  to  decomposition,  to  their  natural 
deodorizer  and  disinfector — earth  particles — there  to  be  held, 
deodorized  and  disinfected  for  the  action  of  the  air  in  the  soil 
to  complete  the  work  by  oxidation. 

Other  Causes  Peculiar  to  the  Old  Country. 

In  England  and  other  parts  of  Europe  the  popular  expecta- 
tions from  irrigation  as  a  sewage  treatment,  has  been  disap- 
pointed in  a  number  of  cases,  from  causes  of  another  nature. 
These  causes  being  peculiar  to  the  manner  in  which  the  sub- 
ject was  presented  there,  or  to  the  social  or  political  condition 
of  the  country,  are  not  likely  to  recur  here,  and  certainly  will 
not  if  the  subject  is  properly  taken  in  hand  when  it  should 
be,  and  not  put  off  until  we  have  a  dense  population. 

England  is  a  densely  populated  country;  and  land  in  the 
neighborhood  of  cities  and  towns  has  its  prefixed  uses  or 
actual  or  prospective  value,  far  in  excess  of  that  which  obtains 
here. 

So  that  it  is  difficult — sometimes  almost  impossible — -to  get 
sufficient  land  of  suitable  quality  and  favorably  situated,  to 
admit  of  the  adoption  of  irrigation  as  a  means  of  disposal  of 
the  sewage  of  many  towns  and  cities  in  that  country. 

Intermittent  Downward  Filtration. 

To  avoid  this  embarrassment  the  process  known  as  intermit- 
tent dozvmvard  filtration,  whereby  lands  were  deeply  under- 
drained  and  used  more  as  filter  beds  than  as  cultivated  tracts, 
with  the  view  of  disposing  of  a  greater  quantity  of  sewage  upon 
the  acre  of  land,  was  resorted  to.  It  is  alleged  by  one  .school 
of  sanitarians  that  by  this  process  the  sewage  of  1,500  people 
can  be  effectively  disposed  of,  without  nuisance,  upon  an  acre 
of  land,  and  it  is  claimed  that  in  several  places  in  England 
the  practice  runs  as  high  as  1,000  persons  per  acre.  Be  this 
as  it  may,  the  principle  is  essentially  the  same  as  that  of  irri- 
gation, with  the  absence,  to  a  great  extent,  of  the  action  of 
plant  gi*owth  on  the  land,  and  I  have  found  no  evidence 


44 

amongst  the  vast  mass,  pro  and  con,  on  the  relative  merits  of 
broad  (ordinary)  irrigation  and  intermittent  downward  filtra- 
tion, which  inclines  my  judgment  in  favor  of  the  latter  under 
circumstances  where  land  is  to  be  had  in  abundance. 

We  must  remember,  then,  that  what  is  said  against  irriga- 
tion as  a  means  of  disposing  of  sewage  in  England  is  very 
largely  on  account  of  the  difficulty  of  getting  enough  land  for 
the  purpose  adjacent  to  the  cities. 

Climate  of  England  Not  Favorable. 

Beyond  this,  the  climate  is  not  such  as  to  make  artificial 
irrigation,  with  any  water,  on  a  broad  scale  for  agricultural 
purposes,  either  necessary  or  very  desirable,  except  for  the 
special  purpose  of  forcing  grass  on  meadows,  and  for  this  use 
sewage  waters  are  not  altogether  well  adapted  ;  and,  further- 
more, English  farmers  are  not  an  irrigating  people,  and  would 
not  generally  contemplate  irrigation  except  for  the  necessity  of 
disposing  of  sewage  waters. 

It  will  be  seen  at  once  that  irrigation  was  undertaken  there 
by  reason  of  a  motive  engendered,  as  it  were,  outside  of  the 
necessities  of  agriculture — the  irrigation  was  not  demanded  by 
the  agricultural  classes,  but  owing  to  the  necessity  under  which 
the  people  living  in  towns  rested,  to  dispose  of  their  polluted 
waters,  some  agriculturists,  from  time  to  time,  have  been 
induced  to  undertake  irrigation  with  sewage  waters. 

The  Reform  Movement. 

Like  all  reforms,  much  more  was  claimed  for  this  than  it 
justly  deserved. 

It  was  claimed  that  sewage  contained  vast  amounts  of  fer- 
tilizing matters,  which  being  applied  to  lands  would  greatly 
increase  their  productive  powers  ;  that  farming  with  sewage 
would  be  exceedingly  remunerative  ;  that  the  farmer  should 
pay  for  the  privilege  of  using  the  sewage  ;  and,  hence,  it 
would  be  a  source  of  revenue  to  the  community  producing  as 
well  as  to  the  farmer  using  it. 


45 

Facts  that  were  Overlooked. 

The  facts  (i)  that  there  would  be  exceptional  inconveniences 
and  expenses  attending  its  use;  (2)  that  the  fertilizing  elements, 
although  present  in  the  sewage,  were  not  and  could  not, 
without  the  lapse  of  time  and  under  favorable  conditions,  be  in 
a  proper  condition  for  assimilation  as  plant  food;  (3)  that 
more  land  would  be  required  for  the  application  of  the  sewage 
as  years  rolled  on,  or,  in  other  words,  that  lands  should  rest 
and  be  cultivated  without  the  application  of  sewage  for  a 
season  or  two  now  and  then  ;  (4)  that  all  soils  were  not  equally 
favorable  for  sewage  reception,  and  some  decidedly  unfavor- 
able, requiring  considerable  and  skillful  preparation  to  make 
them  at  all  suited  for  such  use  5(5)  that  more  than  an  ordinary 
degree  of  skill,  judgment,  faith,  and  care  would  be  required  in 
the  conduct  of  farming  operations  by  the  use  of  sewage ;  (6) 
that  all  sewage  is  not  alike,  or  that  sewage  from  some  towns — 
by  reason  principally  of  the  manufacturing  refuse  and  waste 
waters  largely  forming  it — is  in  its  crude  state  unfit  for  applica- 
tion to  lands  where  cultivation  is  practiced,  and  sewage  from 
other  towns  contains  so  much  solid  matter,  or  solid  matter  of 
such  a  character  that  the  pores  of  the  soil  to  which  it  applies 
become  clogged  ;  (7)  that  comparatively  few  crops  are  suitable 
for  cultivation  by  irrigation  in  the  climate  of  England,  and  not 
all  of  these  are  suitable  for  growth  upon  lands  constantly 
under  irrigation  with  foul  waters  ;  (8)  that  a  very  considerable 
prejudice  existed  amongst  the  laboring  population  to  working 
on  irrigated  lands,  and  a  greater  prejudice  against  working  on 
lands  irrigated  with  highly  polluted  waters  ;  (9)  that  a  very 
great  prejudice  existed  against  consuming  the  products  result- 
ing from  the  use  of  polluted  waters;  and  finally,  (10)  that 
municipal  corporations  cannot  act  to  the  same  advantage  in 
such  matters  as  can  private  individuals — these  facts,  I  say,  were 
overlooked. 

Sewage  not  Especially   Valuable  in  England. 

Experience  has  shown  that  only  under  exceptionally  favor- 
able circumstances — and  these  circumstances  are  many  and 


46 

not  often  rightly  combined — can  anything  more  than  the  or- 
dinary profit  of  farming  be  secured  from  the  use  of  sewage  in 
irrigation  in  Great  Britain  ;  and,  hence,  that  the  communities 
producing  the  sewage  cannot  only  not  expect  to  derive  a  revenue 
from  it,  but,  generally  speaking,  must  be  at  expense  to  assist 
in  handling  it,  in  order  that  the  farmer  may  be  compensated 
for  the  inconvenience  to  which  he  is  put,  or  helped  with  the 
extra  labor  necessitated  by  its  use  ;  and,  beyond  this,  it  is  found 
advisable  in  some  instances,  where  the  available  area  of  land 
is  restricted,  or  its  soil  not  suitable,  or  the  sewage  is  of  a 
specially  noxious  character,  or  for  other  reasons  not  necessary 
here  to  be  mentioned,  to  deprive  the  sewage  waters  of  nearly 
all  the  matter  carried  in  suspension  by  them  before  application 
is  made  to  the  land,  thus  involving  the  cost  of  works  for  the 
treatment  of  the  sewage  and  the  expense  of  their  maintenance 
and  operation,  which,  of  course,  falls  upon  the  community 
sewered. 

The  "Sludge"  Complication. 

And  at  this  stage  of  the  experience  another  sore  disappoint- 
ment, which  has  been  general,  made  itself  felt :  It  was  repre- 
sented, as  an  inducement  to  the  municipalities  to  clarify  their 
sewage  waters,  that  the  resulting  solid  manure  would  be  of 

I  have  said  that  authorities  generally  concur  in  the  opinion  that  the  best  way  to 
dispose  of  sewage  is  to  apply  it  to  land — that  irrigation  per  se  presents  the  only 
satisfactory  solution  of  the  sewage  disposal  problem  yet  arrived  at,  and  that  in  all 
cases  where  an  outfall  into  a  large  tidal  estuary,  or  bay,  or  the  sea,  is  not  afforded, 
irrigation  should  undoubtedly  be  resorted  to  when  land,  climate,  and  other  circum- 
stances are  favorable.  I  say  this,  notwithstanding  what  is  written  by  Mr.  George 
E.  Waring  in  his  "  Sanitary  Drainage  of  Houses  and  Towns,"  in  the  first  two  pages 
of  chapter  ten,  from  which  we  might  infer  that  authorities  are  not  in  any  way  settled 
upon  the  efficiency  of  any  method  of  sewage  disposal. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  not  clear  that  this  author  includes  irrigation  when  he  says 
that  "none  of  these  schemes  have  so  far  achieved  the  success  claimed  for  them,  as 
"  to  gain  the  confidence  of  the  engineering  world  at  large,"  but  that  he  refers 
exclusively  to  the  various  patented  devices  for  purifying  sewage  by  chemical  and 
mechanical  means.  In  the  next  place,  I  read  on  and  find  him  speaking  of  irriga- 
tion and  the  "  Coventry  process"  as  "one  or  two  devices  which  seem  to  afford  relief 
"  in  the  case  of  small  villages,  and  especially  of  large  or  small  establishments." 
And,  lastly,  I  take  his  book  at  his  own  estimate,  to  be  found  in  the  preface,  as  follows  : 
"The  following  chapters  are  not  offered  as  of  material  value  to  such  engineers 
'  and  architects  as  have  given  attention  to  the  subject,  as  these  would  naturally 
'  resort  to  the  original  authorities  from  which  they  have  been  so  largely  drawn. 
'  They  are  addressed  more  especially  to  the  average  citizen  and  householder,  and 
'  are  intended  rather  as  an  incentive  to  the  securing  of  good  work,  than  as  a  guide 
"  to  the  manner  of  its  performance." 


47 

sufficient  market  value  to  more  than  cover  the  expense  of  the 
process,  together  with  interest  on  the  works.  But  this  expecta- 
tion also  proved  fallacious,  as  will  be  explained  more  fully  in 
the  next  chapter  of  this  report ;  and  so  it  has  transpired  that 
irrigation  is  simply  a  method  of  purifying  sewage  waters, 
efficient  in  itself  under  ordinary  conditions ;  that  sewerage  is  a 
process  of  clearing  filth  from  a  town,  and  that  "  towns  must 
pay  to  be  clean,"  and  cannot  make  capital  out  of  their  offal, 
at  least  not  in  England. 

CONCLUSION. 

In  closing  this  part  of  my  report,  I  call  attention  to  the 
points  which  I  have  endeavored  to  make  apparent,  viz.: 

That  irrigation  is  the  proper  mode  of  disposing  of  sewage 
waters. 

That  their  proper  use  on  properly  prepared  lands  does  not 
produce  an  insanitary  condition  of  the  immediate  neighbor- 
hood. 

That  by  proper  appliances  and  management,  the  neighbor- 
hood of  a  sewage  irrigated  field  need  not  be  even  moderately 
offensive,  but  will  be  inoffensive. 

That  in  climates  suited  for  irrigation  at  all,  sewage  waters 
are  valuable  and  ought  not  to  be  thrown  away. 

That  opinions  in  older  countries  are  almost  unanimous  as  to 
the  above  mentioned  points. 

As  I  said,  in  closing  the  last  part  of  this  report,  if  my  con- 
clusions are  not  established  by  evidence,  it  is  only  because  I 
have  refrained  from  transcribing  enough  of  the  supply,  or  have 
not  chosen  well,  or  have  not  arranged  well  the  parts  chosen. 

The  facts  are  well  proven  and  generally  admitted. 


WHAT  SHALL  BE  DONE  WITH  SEWAGE? 


PART  III— ARTIFICIAL  TREATMENT  OF  SEWAGE. 


FILTRATION,    PRECIPITATION,    PURIFICATION. 

In  the  two  preceding  chapters  I  have  briefly  sketched,  in 
outline,  the  history  of  the  sewage  disposal  problem  in  England 
and  other  older  countries.  We  have  seen  the  growing  evil  of 
rivers  pollution,  the  outcry  against  it,  the  declaration  that  it 
was  all  a  myth — that  the  waters  purified  themselves  in  running 
a  short  distance — the  refutation  of  this  fallacy,  the  fearless 
assertion  of  the  most  eminent  men  of  science  from  disinter- 
ested motives,  and  in  the  face  of  the  clamor  of  the  great  mon- 
eyed classes  of  the  country  (the  landlords  or  "rate  payers,"  and 
the  manufacturers),  that  it  was  suicidal  to  put  town  sewage 
and  manufacturing  refuse  into  the  streams  of  the  country ;  and 
we  have  seen  that  the  outcome  of  authoritative  inquiry  into  the 
best  means  of  disposing  of  sewage  has  repeatedly  and  uniformly 
been  a  conclusion  declaring  that  it  should  be  applied  to  land. 

In  the  course  of  this  review  I  have  referred  to  the  fact  that 
many  differences  on  the  part  of  authorities  were  in  degree  only 
of  opposition  to  the  pollution  of  rivers  by  the  deposit  of  sew- 
age in  them,  and  in  degree  of  advocacy  of  the  application  of 
sewage  to  land,  rather  than  the  disputing  of  the  opposition  to 
the  one  or  the  advocacy  of  the  other  measure  altogether,  and 
I  have  spoken  of  means  which,  it  had  heen  asserted,  reconciled 
the  disputants.  It  remains  now  to  consider  these  means. 

The  agitation  against  the  practice  of  pollution  of  the  rivers 
with  sewage  and  manufacturing  offal,  taken  up,  as  it  was,  by 
7 


50 

some  of  the  most  powerful  associations  and  most  accom- 
plished individuals  of  England,  was  a  very  serious  matter  to 
many  large  moneyed  interests  in  the  country.  The  questions 
were  carried  into  the  Courts,  and  in  most  cases  decided  in 
favor  of  the  plaintiffs,  and  injunctions  were  issued  restraining 
the  town,  or  manufactory,  as  the  case  might  be,  from  dumping 
its  sewage  into  the  stream. 

THE   LAND   DIFFICULTY. 

A  way  out  of  the  difficulty  was  eagerly  sought.  In  many 
cases  it  was  impossible  to  get  sufficient  suitable  land  properly 
located  for  irrigation. 

Cheltenham,  Gloucester,  in  1870,  paid  about  $400  per  acre 
for  131  acres  of  land,  quite  unsuitable  in  soil,  upon  which  to 
run  its  sewage,  and  this  was  not  more  than  one  fourth  as  much 
land  as  was  needed. 

Bedford,  Bedfordshire,  pays  $25  per  year  per  acre  for  the  use 
of  land  upon  which  to  put  sewage. 

Bishops  Stortford,  Hertfordshire,  paid  about  $340  per  acre 
for  ninety-seven  acres  for  its  sewage  farm,  and  has  to  pump 
the  sewage  up  to  it. 

Banbury,  Oxfordshire,  acting  under  the  impulse  of  an 
injunction  and  order  restraining  the  town  from  polluting  the 
River  Cherwell,  in  1864,  paid  about  $1,275  Per  acre  f°r  IOO 
acres  upon  which  to  put  its  sewage,  and  also  has  to  pump  the 
liquid  on  to  the  land. 

Kendal,  Westmoreland,  in  1873,  paid  about  $1,260  per  acre 
for  sixty-five  acres  upon  which  to  dispose  of  its  sewage. 

Chorley,  Lancashire,  under  an  order  of  the  Court  of 
Chancery,  to  abstain  from  polluting  the  waters  of  the  River 
Yarrow,  in  1867,  Paid  at  the  rate  of  about  $400  per  acre  for 
eighty-seven  acres  and  about  $540  per  acre  for  forty-six  acres, 
composing  its  sewage  irrigation  farm. 

West  Derby,  Lancashire,  in  1875,  paid  at  the  rate  of  about 
$730  per  acre  for  207  acres  upon  which  to  dispose  of  its  sew- 
age. (Robinson  &  Mellis,  p.  89,  et  seq.) 


And  so  this  list  might  be  run  out  to  almost  a  hundred 
places  which,  within  the  past  fifteen  or  twenty  years,  most  of 
them  within  the  past  ten  years,  have  been  forced  by  order  of 
the  Courts  or  of  the  Conservancy  Boards,  or  by  public  opinion, 
to  purchase  lands  at  figures  ranging  from  $300  to  $1,500  per 
acre,  upon  which  to  utilize  sewage  in  irrigation. 

At  Croydon,  six  years  after  irrigation  with  sewage  began, 
land  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  farm  where  it  was  used 
had  increased  from  £250  to  £1,000  per  acre.  This  fact  shows 
two  things — the  immense  price  which  has  to,  be  paid  for  land 
near  the  cities  for  irrigation,  and  hence  the  great  drawback  to 
the  general  introduction  of  this  method  of  disposing  of  sewage ; 
and  the  fact  that  the  sewage  farm  could  not  have  been  an 
objectionable  neighbor,  otherwise  the  land  would  certainly  not 
have  increased  so  in  value  alongside  of  it.  (Folsom,  p.  341.) 

It  is  no  wonder,  then,  that  there  has  been  great  opposition 
to  the  adoption  of  irrigation,  for  in  fact  in  many  instances,  as 
is  alleged,  it  is  simply  impossible  to  get  land  enough  .for  the 
larger  cities  without  pumping  the  sewage  a  number  of  miles, 
necessitating  great  expense  for  outfall  and  power  works  and 
annual  charges  for  cost  of  operation. 

Taking  these  facts  into  consideration,  and  the  other  circum- 
stances that  contribute  towards  making  a  sewage  irrigation 
farm  a  troublesome  and  not  profitable  property  for  a  municipal 
corporation  to  handle  in  England,  it  is  no  wonder  that  many 
devices  and  processes  have  come  to  public  notice,  the  owners 
or  advocates  of  which  claiming  for  them  the  power  to  do  away 
with  all  the  embarrassments  of  the  problems  of  sewage  disposal. 
In  fact  such  schemes  may  be  numbered  at  least  by  hundreds. 

FILTRATION. 

Filtration  was  at  first  alleged  to  be  the  panacea  for  all  evil 
caused  by  sewage  waters  ;  and  forthwith  artificial  filters  of  all 
conceivable  patterns  and  compositions  were  designed  and 
experimented  with.  There  was  "upward  filtration,"  where  the 
liquid  was  forced  upward  through  filters,  leaving  its  heavier 


52 

suspended  matters  below,  to  be  removed  as  "  sludge ;"  and 
there  was  "  lateral  filtration,"  where  the  filter  was  upright,  as  a 
partition  or  wall,  and  the  liquid  thus  passed  through  from  one 
tank  to  another ;  and,  again,  "  downward  filtration,"  where  the 
liquid  passed  downward  by  gravity  through  the  filter  bed. 
And  these  filter  beds  were  composed  of  every  conceivable 
material  and  combination  of  materials,  ranging  from  gravel, 
coarse  and  fine,  through  coarse  and  fine  sand,  earths  of  various 
kinds,  bone  dust,  wood  charcoal,  animal  charcoal,  thin  boards 
with  very  small  perforations,  and  many  others~besides. 

The  first  Rivers  Pollution  Commission  tried  some  experi- 
ments upon  the  filtration  of  sewage  through  various  soils,  and 
they  reported,  in  1868,  "that  the  process  of  filtration  through 
gravel,  sand,  chalk,  or  certain  kinds  of  soil,  if  properly  carried 
out,  is  the  most  effective  means  of  purifying  sewage."  (Rep. 
Riv.  Pol.  Com.,  1868,  p.  60.) 

But  this  meant  filtration  through  lands,  and  the  fact  is,  as 
experience  has  proved  also,  that  filtration  cannot  be  "properly 
carried  out"  in  an  artificial  filter,  because  it  costs  too  much  to 
make  and  maintain  one  large  enough,  so  that  the  filter  must 
be  a  natural  one — a  piece  of  land  of  such  soil  and  subsoil 
composition  as  to  be  favorable,  and  either  naturally  or  artifi- 
cially well  underdrained  ;  and  the  process  thus  carried  out  is 
of  course  but  one  step — that  of  having  a  plant  growth  on  the 
land — removed  from  irrigation. 

The  advocates  of  artificial  filter  beds  for  the  purification,  or 
the  clarification  even,  of  sewage,  have  long  ago  abandoned 
their  ground,  and  filtration  now  finds  its  place  as  a  sort  of  con- 
centration of  irrigation. 

The  Intermittent  doivnward  filtration,  heretofore  spoken  of, 
being  the  application  of  sewage  to  deeply  drained  land,  in  the 
propo'rtion  of  ten  to  twelve  times  as  great  a  quantity  to  the 
acre  as  in  ordinary  irrigation  practice,  at  the  sacrifice  of  crop 
growth  and  all  but  occasional  cultivation  of  the  soil,  is  of  this 
character,  and  it  is  advocated  chiefly  as  a  substitute  for  irriga- 
tion when  lands  cannot  be  obtained  in  sufficient  quantity  for 


53 

the  latter,  and  as  a  supplement  to  irrigation  for  the  purpose  of 
disposing  of  the  sewage  when  the  crops  do  not  need  to  be 
watered. 

PRECIPITATION. 

The  well  known  properties  of  alum,  lime,  and  alumina, 
whereby  solid  matters  carried  in  suspension  in  water  are  made 
to  settle  to  the  bottom  when  the  fluid  is  in  a  moderate  state  of 
rest,  were  long  ago  availed  of  to  extract  the  noxious  matters 
from  sewage,  and  a  number  of  processes  based  upon  the  use  of 
these  precipitants,  singly  and  in  combination,  in  various  pro- 
portions with  each  other,  and  a  host  of  still  other  substances, 
have  been  devised,  patented,  and  tried — the  most  of  them  only 
to  be  discarded  as  worthless  or  too  expensive  in  application. 

Some,  however,  appear  to  have  given  a  measure  of  satisfac- 
tion under  conditions  where  suitable  land  could  not  be  obtained 
for  irrigation,  so  that,  without  intending  to  specify  any  as  very 
much  better  than  the  others,  it  may  be  well  to  review  those 
which  I  find  most  prominently  mentioned  as  having  been 
submitted  to  practical  trial,  although  it  is  alleged  by  some 
authorities  that  these  all  have  failed  or  are  too  expensive  in 
application  for  general  use,  where  it  is  desired  to  so  far  purify 
the  sewage  as  to  fit  the  effluent  water  for  admission  into  any 
inland  stream. 

The  Coventry  Process,  so  called  because  of  its  adoption  at 
the  town  of  Coventry,  in  Warwickshire,  employs  salts  of 
alumina  as  the  chief  precipitating  agent. 

At  Coventry  about  2,ooo,opo  gallons  per  day  of  sewage, 
"extremely  foul,  and  colored  by  refuse  dye,  etc.,  thrown  into  the 
sewers  from  numerous  silk  dyeing  works,  varnish  works,  etc." 
are  treated  by  this  process. 

Four  tanks  built  into  the  ground  are  used,  the  sewage  con- 
stantly flowing  through  three  of  them,  while  the  other  is  being 
cleaned.  The  sewage  is  first  screened,  to  take  out  large  floating 
solid  matter,  then  treated  to  a  dose  of  a  solution  of  sulphate 
of  alumina,  prepared  in  a  cheap  way  by  treating  shale  with 


54 

sulphuric  acid ;  then  it  receives  a  charge  of  milk  of  lime,  and, 
having  dropped  its  solid  matter  in  the  tanks,  the  clarified 
water  escaping  from  the  tanks  over  weirs  "in  a  fair  state  of 
purity,"  is  then  conveyed  to  filter  beds,  covering  in  all  nine 
acres  of  land,  where  it  is  filtered,  the  beds  being  used  alter- 
nately, and  the  water  finally  passes  into  the  river  Shurburne. 

The  Native  Guano,  or  A,  B,  C  Process,  consists  mainly  in 
the  use  of  alum,  blood,  and  clay  as  precipitants,  the  exact 
receipt  embodying  also  magnesia,  chloride  of  sodium,  animal 
and  vegetable  charcoal,  and  some  other  ingredients,  and  the 
manner  of  application  being  in  tanks. 

It  has  been  tried  at  eight  or  ten  large  towns  and  cities,  with 
varying  success  so  far  as  economy  and  efficiency  are  con- 
cerned. 

The  Phosphate  Process  consists  in  the  use  of  phosphate  of 
alumina  and  lime  as  precipitants;  the  former  being  a  good 
fertilizer,  it  increases  the  value  of  the  resulting  "sludge"  for 
manure  and  facilitates  its  sale. 

The  phosphate  of  alumina  is  mixed  with  sulphuric  acid  to 
make  it  soluble,  after  which  it  is  added  to  the  sewage,  together 
with  a  certain  quantity  of  lime  to  aid  the  precipitation. 

This  process,  also,  has  had  its  applications,  and  there  are 
accounts  of  its  success. 

Then  there  are  a  large  number  of  processes  which  are  not  so 
prominently  mentioned,  but  which  have  had  their  applica- 
tions, and  still  have  their  advocates,  as  follows  : 

«r 

Bird's  Process  employs  "  sulphated  clay,"  so  called,  being  a 
mixture  of  sulphuric  acid  with  common  clay. 

Stotkerfs  Process  employs  lime,  sulphate  of  alumina,  sul- 
phate of  zinc,  and  charcoal. 

Hilles  Process  employs  lime,  tar,  salts  of  magnesium,  and 
the  products  arising  from  the  calcination  of  lime. 

Collins  Process  employs  lime,  carbon  (a  waste  product  of 


55 

prussiate  of  potash  manufacture),  house  ashes,  soda,  and  per- 
chloride  of  iron. 

Holderis  Process  employs  sulphate  of  iron,  lime,  coal  dust, 
and  clay. 

Fuldds  Process  employs,  principally,  lime  and  sulphate  of 
soda. 

Ely  the  s  Process  employs  superphosphate  of  lime  with  mag- 
nesia and  lime. 

Whittread's  Process  employs  a  mixture  of  dicalcic  and  mono- 
calcic  phosphates  and  a  little  milk  of  lime,  the  object  being  to 
recover  in  the  manure  the  whole  of  the  phosphoric  acid. 

Campbell's  Process  employs  phosphate  of  lime  in  a  soluble 
state  which  is  applied  to  the  sewage,  and  then  precipitated  by 
a  further  addition  of  lime. 

Hansons  Process  employs  lime,  black  ash,  and  red  haema- 
tite treated  with  sulphuric  acid. 

Goodalls  Process  employs  lime,  animal  carbon,  ashes,  and 
an  iron  liquor  called  sesqui-persulphate  of  iron. 

The  Lime  Process  is  about  the  oldest  method  of  artificially 
treating  sewage  waters.  At  first  lime  alone  was  used,  but  now 
some  other  ingredients  are  sometimes  added. 

It  has  been  tried  in  more  places  than  any  other  process,  and 
it  may  be  said  of  it  that  whereas  it  fails  to  purify  the  sewage, 
it  is  a  good  clarifier  and  perhaps  fits  the  waters  to  be  purified 
by  application  to  land  about  as  well  as  any  of  the  more  com- 
plicated manipulations,  but  is  complained  of  as  not  a  good 
deodorizer  during  the  operation,  and  as  forming  too  much  sludge 
of  a  low  manurial  value. 


These  are  a  few  of  a  good  many  processes  which  may  be 
found  quite  fully  described  in  the  reports  of  the  Rivers  Pollu- 
tion Commission,  in  special  papers  brought  before  the  Society 


56 

of  Arts,  the  Institution  cf  Civil  Engineers,  and  the  Associa- 
tion of  Sanitary  Engineers,  and  brieflly  described  or  alluded 
to  in  the  works  of  Corfield,  Robinson,  and  Melliss,  the  report 
of  Dr.  Folsom,  and  elsewhere. 

The  record  of  their  practical  application  at  many  different 
cities,  towns,  and  burroughs  under  varying  circumstances,  the 
discussions  of  their  merits  which  have  occurred  before  the  various 
societies  mentioned,  and  the  reports  on  their  results  made  by 
various  committees,  commissions,  etc.,  are,  to  say  the  least, 
decidedly  confusing. 

Taking  them  all  together,  I  find  it  generally  held  by  the 
authorities,  and  in  fact  most  all  who  participate  in  the  discus- 
sions, except  those  interested  in  the  patent  rights  to  the  pro- 
cesses, or  who  want  to  adopt  some  such  method  of  preparing 
sewage  water  for  admission  into  a  stream,  to  save  a  greater 
outlay  for  some  other  works,  so  far  as  I  am  able  to  judge,  that 
they  do  clarify  the  liquid — precipitate  the  solid  matter  held  in 
suspension;  that  some  are  decidedly  more  economical  than 
others  in  the  accomplishment  of  this  result ;  that  some,  a  few, 
perhaps,  accomplish  more  than  a  mere  clarification,  and  remove 
matters  held  in  solution;  that  economy  here  also  is  variable; 
and  that  none  of  them  so  far  purify  the  water  as  should  render 
it  admissible  into  a  stream;  but  that  it  can  readily  be  so 
purified  by  filtration  through  or  use  in  irrigation  on  a  small 
area  of  land  after  such  clarification. 

SOME  AUTHORITIES. 

Certain  it  is  that  the  artificial  treatment  of  sewage  by  either 
filtration,  or  chemical  or  mechanical  precipitation,  fails  to 
purify  the  water  and  leaves  it  in  a  condition  dangerous  to  be 
taken  into  the  human  system,  even  in  a  most  diluted  form. 

First  Rivers  Pollution  Commission. 

The  First  Rivers  Pollution  Commission  reported:  "As 
"applied  to  sewage,  disinfectants  do  not  disinfect  and  filter 
"beds  do  not  filter.*  Both  attempts  have  been  costly  failures." 

*  This  applies  to  artificial  filter  beds  and  not  to  natural  filtration  through  lands. 


57 

Sewage  of  Towns  Commission. 

The  Sewage  of  Towns  Commission  reported  that  artificial 
filtration  had  been  given  up  because  "the  filters  choke  imme- 
"diately  and  become  impervious  to  the  passage  of  the  liquid." 

Rivers  Pollution  Commission. 

The  Rivers  Pollution  Commission  in  1858  and  the  Local 
Government  Board  in  1876  speak  favorably  of  the  deodorizing 
and  clarify  action  of  several  precipitating  processes,  saying 
in  substance  that  no  nuisance  in  the  way  of  odor  arises  from 
their  proper  application,  nor  does  the  effluent  water  offend  the 
nostrils  or  eye,  but  they  deny  the  efficiency  of  any  such  pro- 
cess in  the  way  of  the  purification  of  the  water. 

Executive  Committee  of  the  Society  of  Arts  Conference. 

The  Executive  Committee  of  the  Society  of  Arts  Conference 
on  Sewage,  reported  that  by  some  of  the  precipitation  processes, 
combined  with  filtration,  "a  sufficiently  purified  effluent  can  be 
"  produced  for  discharge,  without  injurious  results,  into  water- 
"  courses  and  rivers,  of  sufficient  magnitude  for  its  considerable 
"  dilution ;  and  that  for  many  towns,  where  land  is  not  readily 
"obtainable  at  a  moderate  price,  those  particular  processes 
"  afford  the  most  suitable  means  of  disposing  of  water-carried 
"  sewage." 

This  is  the  most  favorable  opinion  I  have  found  of  these 
chemical  processes,  coming  from  a  source  other  than  individual, 
such  as  I  have  hitherto  mentioned ;  and  even  this  opinion  is 
not  to  be  ranked  with  those  of  the  Government  Commissioners 
appointed  for  that  purpose,  one  of  which  is  as  follows : 

Second  Rivers  Pollution  Commission. 

The  Rivers  Pollution  Com  nission,  of  which  Doctor  Frank- 
land  was  at  the  head  as  expert  chemist,  in  their  report  of  1874 
(the  sixth),  under  the  head  of  "T/ie  possibility  of  rendering 
polluted  water  again  wholesome'  (p.  427),  say : 

"  Of  all  the  processes  which  have  been  proposed  for  the  purification 
"  of  sewage,  or  of  water  polluted  by  excrementitious  matters,  there  is 


58 

"  not  one  which  is  sufficiently  effective  to  warrant  the  use,  for  dietetic 
"purposes,  of  water  which  has  been  so  contaminated." 

This  opinion,  of  course,  applies  to  artificial  processes  only. 
The  conclusion  of  this  Commission,  with  respect  to  the  efficiency 
of  irrigation  as  a  process  of  purifying  sewage,  is  elsewhere 
cited. 

Dr.  Folsom. 

Dr.  Folsom,  who  examined  the  subject  personally  for  the 
Massachusetts  Board  of  Health  in  1875,  reported  as  follows: 

"  In  France  and  Germany  the  precipitating  processes  have  been 
"  given  up  as  inefficient.  In  England  a  new  successful  patent  process 
"  is  hawked  about  every  few  months,  to  be  soon  found  only  an  addi- 
'tion  to  the  list  of  failures;  and  the  public  is  bewildered  by  the  maze 
'of  conflicting  statements  and  propositions.  In  some  cases,  how- 
'  ever,  cities  have  been  driven  to  the  precipitating  process  because 
1  they  could  not  get  sufficient  land  to  deal  with  their  sewage  in  any 
'other  way."  (Work  cited,  p.- 333.) 

This  opinion  is  worthy  of  all  credence,  considering  the 
source  it  comes  from  and  the  disinterested  attitude  occupied 
by  the  authority. 

Bailey  Denton. 

In  concluding  this  branch  of  the  subject,  I  present  extracts 
from  the  Lectures  of  Mr.  Denton,  to  which  I  have  before 
referred.  They  are  selected  and  arranged  so  as  to  give  an 
idea  in  a  small  space  of  the  view  this  authority  takes  of  the 
subject. 

Until  recently  the  laws  of  England  required  the  liquid  sew- 
age of  towns  to  be  conducted  into  rivers,  etc. : 

"  Under  the  altered  state  of  the  laws  towns  must  abstain  from  so 
"  discharging  until  it  has  been  freed  'from  all  foul  and  noxious  mat- 
" '  ters '  by  the  best  practicable  and  reasonably  available  means." 
(Bailey  Denton,  Lectures,  p.  248.) 

In  this  respect  towns  are  to  be  divided  into  three  classes: 

I.  Seaboard  towns. 

II.  Towns  bordering  tidal  rivers  or  estuaries. 
III.  Towns  adjacent  to  inland  rivers  and  streams. 


59 

Discharging  into  the  Sea. 

"  The  possibility  of  discharging  sewage  into  the  sea  unobjectionably 
"  only  exists  where  the  shore  is  not  used  for  bathing  or  for  recreation, 
''and  where  the  town  does  not  extend  down  to  the  water's  edge." 
*********** 

Thus  it  is  often  the  case  "  that,  even  in  seaboard  towns,  the  sew- 
"  age,  before  it  is  discharged,  should  not  only  be  clarified,  but  that 
"  everything  should  be  done  within  reasonable  limits  to  secure  a  con- 

"  stant  outflow,  independently  of  the  tide." 

***********. 

"  One  or  the  other  of  the  tried  chemical  precipitation  processes 
"  will  effect  the  required  clarification  of  the  sewage  of  this  class  of 
"  towns  where  land  cannot  be  obtained."  (Work  cited,  pp.  177-178.) 

Discharging  into  Tidal  Rivers  and  Estuaries. 

"A  considerable  number  of  towns  in  this  country  are  situated  on 
"  the  shores  of  tidal  waters,  some  of  which  reach  far  inland.  The 
"  difficulty  of  satisfactorily  dealing  with  sewage  which  can  only  thus 
"  be  carried  to  the  sea  by  the  ebb  and  flow  of  the  tide  is  very  con- 
"  siderable." 

"  The  banks  or  shores  of  these  waters  generally  consist  of  mud, 
"  and  are  exposed  to  the  atmosphere  for  a  sufficient  time  during  each 
"  tide  to  give  off  in  extremely  hot  weather  an  intolerable  stench, 
"  which  is  necessarily  made  worse  by  mixture  with  sewage." 

"  In  dealing  with  towns  on  tidal  rivers  it  becomes  the  duty  of  the 
"  engineer  to  treat  the  liquid  refuse  differently  from  the  way  in  which 
"  he  would  dispose  of  the  sewage  of  either  a  town  directly  on  the 
"  seaboard  or  situated  on  an  inland  river." 

"  The  most  rational  view  of  the  matter  is,  that  while  the  sewage 
"  discharged  from  seaboard  towns  directly  into  the  sea  may  be  simply 
"  clarified,  that  which  is  discharged  into  tidal  rivers,  the  waters  of 
"  which  are  never  used  as  sources  of  potable  waters,  should  be 
"  cleansed  of  its  putrescible  matters  up  to  a  certain  standard,  which 
"  though  less  stringent  than  that  applied  to  inland  rivers,  should  be 
"  sufficiently  high  to  prevent  its  causing  the  nuisance  of  which  I  have 
"  spoken."  *  "  These  standards, 

"  it  is  declared,  can  be  reached  by  several  of  the  processes  which  I 
"  shall  hereafter  explain."  (Work  cited,  p.  179.) 

Discharging  into  Rivers  far  Inland. 

"  It  is  not  only  reasonable,  but  positively  necessary,  that  considera- 
"  tions  altogether  different  from  those  ruling  in  the  case  of  seaboard 
"  towns  should  determine  the  mode  of  disposing  of  the  sewage  of 
"  inland  towns. 

"  The  effluent  water  in  such  cases  should,  indeed,  be  '  freed  of  all 
"'foul  or  noxious  matter'  (Public  Health  Act,  1875,  clause  17), 
"  without  compromise,  and  the  law  should  be  exercised  without  hesi- 
"  tation. 


6o 

"  The  influence  of  the  opposition  of  manufacturers  upon  the  past 
"  and  present  governments  has  resulted  in  a  temporary  respite,  and 
"  some  ground  has  been  lost  by  temporizing  which  had  previously 
"  been  gained  by  slow  and  certain  steps ;  but  when  saying  this  it  is 
"  impossible  to  evade  the  conclusion  that  the  perfect  and  permanent 
"  cleansing  of  sewage  will  be  sooner  or  later  insisted  upon  by  every 
"  voice  in  the  country,  and  by  no  persons  more  decidedly  than  by 
"  the  manufacturers  themselves."  (Work  cited,  pp.  180-182.) 

Disposal  of  the  Sewage  of  Villages  and  Hamlets. 

"  The  remarks  upon  the  disposal  of  liquid  refuse  of  towns  apply 
"  equally  to  villages.  *  *  *  *  It  has  been  taken  for  granted 
"  by  most  persons — simply  because  the  point  has  not  been  thor- 
"  oughly  discussed — that  if  solid  refuse  (kitchen  and  shop  refuse, 
"  not  sewage  matter)  is  disposed  of  in  some  approved  manner,  very 
"  small  places  may  turn  their  sewage  water  into  the  nearest  water- 
"  course.  This  impression  will  have  but  a  transient  existence,  though 
"  the  money  now  being  spent  in  temporizing  with  difficulties  and  in 
"  endeavoring  to  evade  the  law  is  very  considerable*  I  feel  bound 
to  assert,  though,  *  *  *  that  there  is  no  other  way  of  satisfac- 
torily disposing  of  the  liquid  refuse  of  any  community  than  by  a 
common  water-tight  sewer,  which  shall  collect  and  discharge  it  for 
appropriate  treatment.  This  cannot  be  too  well  understood,  for 
the  precise  mode  of  disposing  of  liquid  sewage  becomes  compara- 
"  tively  easy  directly  it  is  determined  to  collect  and  deliver  it  at  a 
"  given  point."  (Work  cited,  pp.  182-183.) 

As  elsewhere  noted,  this  authority  favors  irrigation  where 
land  enough  can  be  had  ;  intermittent  downward  filtration, 
through  land  prepared  for  the  purpose,  where  sufficient  land 
for  irrigation  can  not  be  had  ;  and  the  precipitating  process 
where  the  land  available  is  still  more  restricted,  or  not  suitable 
for  the  other  mentioned  methods  of  treatment. 

CONCLUSION. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  pursue  this  branch  of  the  subject 
further  at  present.  The  conclusions  to  be  drawn  are  : 

That  if  it  is  advisable  to  clarify — precipitate  the  solid  mat- 
ter held  in  suspension — the  sewage  at  your  institution,  it  can 
be  done,  and  with  the  detailed  records  of  ample  experience  at 
command  to  guide  in  the  work  ;  but  that  we  can  not  purify 
the  waters  as  they  should  be  purified,  by  any  of  these  precip- 
itation processes  alone,  unless  we  should  be  more  successful 
than  the  best  authorities  say  such  work  has  been  in  older 
countries. 


WHAT  IS  TO  BE  DONE  WITH  SEWAGE? 


PART  IV— THE  DISPOSAL  OF  THE  ASYLUM  SEWAGE. 


SHALL   THE   SEWAGE   BE   CARRIED   AWAY  ? 

And  now  for  the  application  to  the  case  in  hand,  of  the  facts 
and  conclusions  brought  forward  in  the  review  of  the  Sewage- 
disposal  question  which  I  have  presented  in  the  preceding 
three  chapters. 

It  has  been  proposed  to  conduct  the  asylum  sewage  (i)  to 
the  San  Joaquin  River,  and  dispose  of  it  by  mingling  vvith  the 
river  waters  ;  or,  failing  in  sufficient  money  to  carry  out  this 
work,  (2)  to  put  it  in  Stockton  Slough  at  some  point  west  of 
the  city  limits  ;  or,  as  an  alternative,  (3)  to  extend  the  North 
Street  canal  to  the  river,  and  use  it  as  an  outfall  for  sewage  at 
some  point  undefined ;  and  I  am  called  upon  to  say  whether  or 
not  it  is  advisable  for  the  Board  of  Directors  to  adopt  either 
one  of  these  outfalls  and  construct  works  in  accordance  there- 
with. 

THE   SANITARY   ASPECT   OF   THE   QUESTION. 

The  San  Joaquin  as  an  Outfall.    • 

With  respect  to  the  first  proposition — turning  the  sewage 
into  the  San  Joaquin  River — I  am  by  no  means  satisfied  that 
the  deposit  of  the  comparatively  small  amount  of  fouled  liquid 
which  your  institution  produces,  into  the  river,  would  pollute 
its  waters  so  as  to  be  noticeable ;  and  were  the  question  of  no 
broader  scope  than  one  of  policy  or  expediency  on  this  foot- 
ing, I  would  not  be  prepared,  in  the  interest  of  undefiled  river 
waters  alone/ to  advise  against  the  act. 


62 

But  the  question  could  not  by  any  one  be  thus  easily  dis- 
missed, for  the  deposit  of  this  sewage  in  the  river  would  be  but 
the  beginning  of  other  acts  of  the  same  kind,  and  greater  in 
degree,  which  quite  likely  would  constitute  a  nuisance  that 
soon  would  be  cause  for  complaint  by  the  casual  observer  even. 
In  point  of  fact,  the  deposit  of  any  such  foul  water  in  a  running 
stream  of  this  size,  is  held  by  the  great  bulk  of  scientific 
authority  to  materially  pollute  its  waters,  under  ordinary  cir- 
cumstances, as  I  have  already  shown.  So  that  even  if  the 
result  of  the  deposit  of  the  asylum  sewage  in  the  San  Joaquin 
River  was  not  noticeably  objectionable,  the  justification  of  it 
on  that  ground  would  be  a  mere  subterfuge,  liable  at  any  time 
to  be  laid  bare,  should  any  competent  person  take  hold  of  the 
matter  with  the  view  of  stopping  such  deposit. 

If,  as  above,  a  private  individual,  or  any  organization, 
would  not  be  justified  in  setting  a  bad  example  by  thus  dis- 
posing of  sewage,  and  doing  an  act  which,  although  not 
noticeably  objectionable,  could  be  exposed  as  a  material  and 
dangerous  pollution  of  the  waters  of  a  public  stream,  still  less 
would  you,  as  officers  of  the  State,  be  held  blameless  for  such 
act. 

The  Stockton  Slough  as  an  Outfall. 

As  to  the  use  of  Stockton  Slough,  or  any  part  of  it,  as  an 
outfall  for  the  asylum  sewage,  I  am  clearly  of  the  opinion  that 
such  use  would  soon  result  in  the  pollution  of  its  waters  to 
such  an  extent  that  it  would  be  noticeable  to  the  eye  of  the 
casual  observer  for  at  least  six  months  in  the  year;  that  in  a 
very  few  years  the  bed  of  the  slough  in  the  neighborhood  of 
the  outfall,  and  above  and  below  it,  would  become  so  charged 
with  putrescible  matter  as  to  give  off  foul  odors  and  deleterious 
gases,  and  that  the  solid  matter  of  your  sewage,  amounting  to 
1,000  to  1,500  cubic  feet,  yearly,  would  settle  in  the  slough 
channel,  and  not  be  carried  away  into  the  river. 

It  takes  a  water  current  velocity  of  two  and  a  half  to  three 
and  a  quarter  feet  per  second  to  hold  in  suspension — keep 
from  settling — the  suspended  matters  of  sewage,  and  no  such 


63 

velocity  now  ever  exists  in  Stockton  Slough  above  the  mouth 
of  Mormon  Slough,  and  below  the  mouth  of  Mormon  Slough 
only  for  the  few  days  of  the  highest  floods. 

The  Stockton  channel  is  a  mere  dead-end  basin,  without 
fixed  water  currents,  for  the  greater  portion  of  each  year.  A 
good  part  of  this  time — that  portion  when  the  river  is  high 
and  the  Mormon  Slough  is  not  in  flood — there  is  not  even  a 
material  tidal  action  in  this  basin.  And  when  the  water  is 
low  the  tidal  movement  is  only  about  two  and  a  half  feet. 

Knowing  the  section  of  the  channel  at  its  mouth,  the  area 
and  depth,  and  consequently  the  volume  of  the  tidal  prism 
above  that  point,  and  the  time  of  tidal  movement,  as  I  do 
from  surveys,  with  sufficient  accuracy  for  this  purpose,  I  find 
that  the  average  velocity  of  tidal  currents  at  the  mouth  must 
be  even  less  than  one  foot  a  second,  and  that  the  maximum 
can  rarely,  if  ever,  exceed  two  feet,  and  that  must  be  for  a  very 
short  time  at  each  tide. 

This  estimate  is  for  the  section  at  the  mouth  of  the  channel ; 
of  course  the  rates  diminish  for  each  section  above,  until  there 
is  no  perceptible  current  made  by  the  tide  much  above  Mor- 
mon Slough;  the  movement  of  the  waters  in  the  down-stream 
half  of  the  channel  alternately  backing  up  and  lowering  those  in 
the  up-stream  end. 

Thus  any  disposal  of  sewage  in  this  channel  above  the 
mouth  of  Mormon  Slough  would,  so  far  as  tidal  current  influ- 
ence is  concerned,  be  received  in  a  pond  almost  without  cur- 
rent, and  disposal  below  that  point  would  be  in  a  channel 
with  current  insufficient  to  hold  the  solid  matters  in  suspen- 
sion, and  that,  too,  running  alternately  up  and  down,  so  as  to 
act  both  ways. 

The  water  circulation  in  the  upper  half  of  Stockton  Slough 
is  kept  up  more  by  the  influence  of  the  wind  than  by  tide. 
The  trade  winds  of  Summer  blow  almost  directly  up  the  chan- 
nel, creating  a  surface  current  in  that  direction,  which  of 
course  results  in  a  sub-surface  or  bottom  current  in  the  oppo- 
site direction.  Observation  in  other  similar  water  basins 


64 

shows  these  rules  of  circulation  generally  to  prevail;  and  my  own 
observation  of  Stockton  channel  leads  me  to  believe  that  it 
presents  no  exception. 

Sewage  matter  dumped  into  this  channel  would  in  part  be 
swept  up  stream  as  well  as  down, 'and  be  simply  spread  along 
the  bottom  of  the  waterway. 

It  has  been  proposed  to  deposit  the  sewage  at  a  point  where 
some  dead-end  slough  joins  the  main  channel,  making  a  back- 
water reservoir  for  the  sewage,  which  would  be  emptied  at  low 
tide. 

Under  the  circumstances  and  laws  I  have  pointed  out,  a  lit- 
tle reflection  will  show  to  any  one,  I  hope,  that  this  would  be 
no  safeguard  against  the  evils  of  which  I  speak  as  results. 

If  there  were  tidal  area  enough  towards  the  upper  end  of 
this  slough  in  which  to  impound  water  at  high  tide  by  a  dam, 
and  let  it  out  with  a  rush  as  the  tide  receded,  some  good  might 
be  thus  effected,  or,  rather,  harm  prevented.  But  the  circum- 
stances are  such  as  not  to  admit  of  any  such  arrangement  at 
small  cost,  or  any  such  cost,  at  least,  as  you  would  be  justified 
in  incurring  for  your  purposes. 

When  sewage  is  put  into  tidal  waters  of  this  character,  or 
even  in  a  tidal  river,  the  best  way  to  insure  its  being  moved  to 
advantage,  is  to  store  it  in  a  tank  until  the  turn  of  the  tide 
and  then  let  it  out,  and  also  flush  the  channel,  as  I  have  indi- 
cated above,  from  a  tidal  reservoir. 

The  side  channel  dumpage  would  create  a  nuisance  in  less 
time  than  dumpage  into  the  main  slough,  for  the  side  channel 
itself  would  soon  silt  up  and  become  a  bed  of  festering  matter 
to  poison  the  air  of  the  whole  neighborhood. 

The  North  Canal  as  an  Outfall. 

It  has  been  proposed  to  continue  the  North  Street  canal 
through  to  the  San  Joaquin  River;  to  use  it  as  an  outfall 
channel,  or  to  lay  a  pipe  in  it  to  be  used  as  a  main  outfall 
sewer,  or  to  lay  a  pipe  for  this  purpose  in  the  embankment 
bordering  it. 

This   canal   would  for  eight  or  nine  thousand  feet  of  its 


65 

length  be  located  through  the  tule  swamp  whose  surface  is 
three  to  five  feet  below  the  level  of  ordinary  high  water  in  the 
river;  and,  being  joined  to  the  river,  it  would  have  to  be  flanked 
by  embankments  on  each  side,  varying  in  height  from  six  to 
eight  feet,  to  preserve  it  as  a  canal. 

During  the  greater  portion  of  each  year  the  canal  would  be 
simply  a  dead-end  tidal  channel,  that  would .  not  keep  itself 
clear  of  silt  from  natural  washings,  much  less  carry  away  the 
solid  matter  of  sewage  should  it  be  deposited  therein.  This 
canal  would  require  a  constant  flow  of  seventy-five  to  one 
hundred  cubic  feet  of  water  per  second  to  make  it  self-cleans- 
ing, and  where  any  such  supply  can  be  had  to  feed  it,  for  at 
least  eight  months  in  each  year,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  know. 

The  city  of  Sacramento  has  just  such  a  canal  for  an  outfall 
channel  for  its  sewage  waters.  Under  a  city  ordinance  every 
house  drain  has  to  connect  with  a  cesspool,  so  that  the  solid 
matter  settles  therein,  and  the  overflow  liquid,  only,  reaches 
the  sewers  and  through  them  the  canal.  Yet  this  canal, 
receiving  but  little  solid  matter,  and  with  greater  grade  than 
can  be  had  in  io,oqO  feet  of  the  proposed  extension  of  the 
North  Street  canal  of  Stockton,  and  receiving  a  larger  amount 
of  sewage  than  that  would  receive  (giving  it  a  better  flow  on 
the  average,  of  course),  is  an  object  that,  I  am  satisfied,  the 
owners  of  property  in  Stockton  would  not  like  to  have  trans- 
ferred to  their  neighborhood,  and  which  the  Sacramentans 
would  quickly  get  rid  of,  if  they  could  at  any  outlay  of  money 
which  the  city  could  immediately  afford. 

If  the  proposed  North  Street  canal  were  not  carried  through 
to  the  river,  the  sewage  would  spread  over  private  lands. 

If  the  pipe  were  laid  in  the  canal  through  which  to  run 
sewage,  as  has  been  proposed,  it  would  be  below  water  and 
impossible  to  get  at  for  repairs,  would  be  broken  by  unequal 
settlement  in  the  soft  ground,  and  have  to  be  flushed  out 
under  considerable  pressure,  artificially  applied,  during  at  least 
six  months  of  the  year  when  the  river  was  not  nearly  at  its 
lowest  stage. 
9 


66 

If  a  sewer  pipe  were  laid  in  the  embankment,  it  would  be 
broken  by  unequal  settlement  of  the  bank,  unless  that  bank 
were  specially  built  to  sustain  it,  at  very  considerable  extra 
expense,  and  there  are  other  objections  to  this  arrangement 
which  I  mention  in  the  last  part  of  this  report. 

If  a  sewer  pipe  is  to  be  laid  from  the  asylum,  or  the  north- 
ern part  of  the  city  of  Stockton,  to  the  San  Joaquin  River, 
unless  a  very  considerable  amount  of  money  is  to  be  expended 
in  constructing  this  canal  and  building  and  protecting  its 
banks,  it  (the  pipe)  should  be  laid  down  along  the  northern 
bank  of  the  Stockton  channel,  where  the  ground  is  most  firm, 
where  it  will  be  most  accessible,  cheap  of  construction,  and 
economical  in  maintenance.  It  should  be  put  upon  a  good 
artificial  foundation  wherever  the  natural  ground  is  not  suffi- 
ciently firm,  and  be  so  located  as  to  be  within  (north  of)  the 
line  of  levee  that  doubtless  some  day  will  be  erected  there. 

In  short,  I  do  not  see  that  the  asylum  sewage  problem,  up 
to  this  point  of  our  consideration  of  it,  has,  properly,  anything 
to  do  with  the  North  Street  canal  or  its  extension. 

The  agricultural  drainage  from  the  asyjum  grounds,  inclu- 
sive of  the  ground  filtered  by  sewage  waters,  should  the  sew- 
age be  used  properly  in  the  irrigation  of  those  grounds,  might 
well  find  an  outfall  by  that  canal ;  but  the  sewage  should  not 
go  into  it,  nor  should  it  go  along  it  or  its  embankment,  in  a 
pipe,  unless,  as  I  have  said,  there  is  to  be  an  embankment 
specially  built  for  the  purpose  of  holding  such  pipe,  and  unless 
works  are  to  be  here  carried  out,  in  connection  therewith,  very 
much  more  expensive  and  elaborate  than  you  would  be  justi- 
fied in  undertaking,  except  as  a  small  part  of  the  city  of  Stock- 
ton. 

I  now  respectfully  call  your  attention  to  another  aspect  of 
this  question  of  outfall  into  the  San  Joaquin  River  or  any  of 

its  arms. 

The  Legal  Aspect  of  the  Question. 

The.  State,  the  Guardian  of  the  Streams. 

The  State  is  the  guardian  of  the  public  streams,  particularly 
of  those  which  are  navigable.  If  anything  is  done  which  pol- 


6; 

lutes  the  waters  of  such  streams,  the  authority  of  the  State 
would  or  should  be  exercised  to  stop  it.  Perhaps  this  practice 
of  dumping  sewage  into  streams  will  be  resorted  to  in  this 
State  by  town  authorities  as  a  convenient,  and,  apparently  to 
them,  cheap  way  of  getting  rid  of  it.  Perhaps  the  subject  will 
be  tampered  with  and  temporized  with  here,  just  as  it  has  been 
elsewhere,  until  some  flagrant  nuisances  have  been  created— 
until  the  beds  of  our  watercourses  have  been  poisoned — when 
the  State  will  be  called  upon  to  stop  the  practice. 

But  when  this  time  comes  it  should  not  be  of  record  that  the 
State  herself,  by  the  act  of  the  Directors  of  the  Stockton  Insane 
Asylum,  set  the  bad  example  which,  followed  out,  will  have 
led  to  the  pollution  of  her  streams,  the  waste  of  money  in  town 
sewerage  works  that  will  have  to  be  remodelled,  and  probably 
will  have  conduced  to  the  propagation  of  some  of  those  disease 
scourges  the  names  of  which,  even,  fill  many  people  with  dread. 

Or,  perhaps,  I  may  be  wrong  when  I  say  that  this  evil  prac- 
tice of  fouling  river  waters  with  sewage  will  probably  grow  up 
here  ;  I  hope  so,  but  at  any  rate  it  will  be  well  to  set  the 
example  of  a  right  and  proper  mode  of  disposing  of  sewage ; 
and  while  there  might  be  blame  in  future  store  for  State 
authorities  who  set  a  bad  example,  there  may  be  praise  await- 
ing the  carrying  out  of  a  good  example,  and  material  benefit 
to  the  citizens  of  the  State  by  thus  showing  town  authorities 
what  should  be  done  and  how  to  do  it  in  this  respect. 

At  any  rate,  unpopular  though  it  may  be,  and  "  ahead  of  the 
times"  here,  or 'savoring  of  refinement  of  policy  not  justified 
by  the  facts,  as  it  may  seem  to  the  many  persons  who  have 
not  really  studied  the  matter,  and  who  will  naturally  tend  to 
the  easiest  solution,  for  the  time  being,  of  this  sewage  disposal 
problem  here,  as  many  other  good  people  have  done  elsewhere, 
it  is  clearly  my  duty  to  point  out  the  danger  ahead  and  advise 
against  taking  the  channel  which  experience  has  so  fully  shown 
to  be  filled  with  rocks  and  shoals  and  wrecks,  further  on. 

I  see  no  reason  why  we,  though  far  from  the  scenes  of 
mature  experience  on  this  sewage  question,  should  fall  into  the 


68 

same  errors  (and  there  are  hundreds  of  them  besides  the  one 
I  have  pointed  out)  that  the  local  authorities  of  England  and 
Germany  and  France  have  waded  through,  or  are  still  floun- 
dering in,  at  such  enormous  expense  to  their  "  rate  payers." 
For  we  have  only  to  look  thoroughly  into  the  subject — to  go 
below  the  scum  of  books  written  merely  for  popular  sale— 
and  devote  some  systematic  study  to  the  detailed  professional 
accounts  of  what  others  have  done,  rather  than  to  trust  to  the 
inspiration  of  "  local  talent,"  and  be  led  by  shallow  efforts  at 
economizing  at  the  inauguration  of  sewerage  systems. 

California  Penal  Code. 

Beyond  the  matter  of  policy  in  this  question  of  sewage  dis- 
posal for  your  institution,  lies  the  facts  of  the  law. 

Section  374  of  the  Penal  Code  of  the  State,  as  amended  in 
1875-76,  reads  as  follows  : 

"  Every  person  who  puts  the  carcass  of  any  dead  animal,  or  the 
'  offal  from  any  slaughter-pen,  corral,  or  butcher  shop,  into  any  river, 

*  creek,  pond,  reservoir,  stream,  street,  alley,  public  highway,  or  road 
'  in  common  use,  or  who  attempts  to  destroy  the  same  by  fire  within 
'  one  fourth  of  a  mile  of  any  city,  town,  or  village,  and  every  person 
'  who  puts  the  carcass  of  any  dead  animal,  or  any  offal  of  any  kind, 
'  in   or   upon  the  borders  of  any  stream,  pond,  lake,  or  reservoir, 
'  from  which  water  is  drawn  for  the  supply  of  the  inhabitants  of  any 
'  city,  city  and  county,  or  any  town,  in  this  State,  so  that  the  drain- 

*  age  from   such  carcass   or  offal   may  be  taken  up  by  or  in  such 
'  stream,  pond,  lake,  or  reservoir,  or  who  allows  the  carcass  of  any 
'  dead  animal,  or  any  offal  of  any  kind,  to   remain  in  or  upon  the 

*  borders  of  any   such   stream,   pond,   lake,  or  reservoir,  within  the 
'  boundaries  of  any  lands  owned  or  occupied  by  him,  or  who  keeps 
'  any  horses,  mules,  cattle,  swine,  sheep,  or  live  stock  of  any  kind, 
'  penned,  corraled,  or  housed  on,  over,  or  on  the  borders  of  any 
1  such  stream,  pond,  lake,  or  reservoir,  so  that  the  waters  thereof 

*  shall  become  polluted  by  reason  thereof,  is  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor, 
'  and  upon  conviction  thereof  shall  be  punished  as  prescribed  in 
'  Section  377  of  this  Code.     (In  effect  March  23,  1876.) 

This  law  does  not  say  "  sewage"  or  "sewage  matter;*'  but  it 
certainly  seems  to  me  that  it  specifies  infinitely  less  offensive 
acts  than  that  of  depositing  several  cubic  feet  daily  of  the 
most  foul  and  dangerous  offal  known,  in  a  stream,  and  says 
that  the  person  found  doing  either  of  them  shall  be  deemed 
guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  punished  accordingly. 


69 

The  solid  matter  of  the  asylum  sewage,  to  say  nothing  of 
the  liquid,  which  is  very  much  greater  in  bulk,  would  about 
equal  a  good  sized  calf,  at  the  verge  of  decomposition,  daily, 
deposit  it  where  you  will. 

The  Law  of  Nuisances. 

Without  in  any  way  attempting  to  assume  the  part  of  your 
legal  adviser,  but  rather  to  bring  to  your  attention  some  pri- 
mary points  of  the  law,  in  order  that  you  may  see  the  neces- 
sity for  taking  advice  of  your  proper  legal  counselor  before 
making  a  step  which  may  lead  to  trouble,  should  you  be 
inclined  to  put  the  sewage  of  your  institution  into  any  stream 
or  ditch,  I  recommend  to  your  reading  the  thirteenth  chapter 
of  "Wood  on  Nuisances,"  edition  of  1883,  a  work  which  I 
believe  stands  high  as  a  legal  text-book. 

You  will  there  find  that  "the  right  of  a  riparian  owner  to 
"  have  the  water  of  a  stream  come  to  him  in  its  natural  purity 
"  is  as  well  recognized  as  the  right  to  have  it  flow  to  his  land ;" 
that  "the  Legislature,"  even,  "has  not  the  power'to  authorize 
"  the  use  "  of  a  navigable  stream  "  in  such  a  way  as  to  destroy 
"  its  use  by  riparian  owners  "  for  drinking  or  "primary  pur- 
"  poses,"  "  without  compensation  ;  that  the  fact  of  its  being  a 
"  public  convenience  to  dispose  of  offal  in  a  river,  is  no  excuse 
"  in  the  eyes  of  the  law  ;"  that  "  neither  does  it  make  any 
"  difference  or  in  any  measure  operate  as  an  excuse  that  the 
"  nuisance  cannot  be  obviated  without  great  expense,  or  that 
"  the  plaintiff  himself  could  obviate  the  injury  at  a  trifling 
"  expense  ;"  that  the  question  of  distance  which  the  offensive 
matter  may  be  transported  does  not  operate  as  an  excuse  ; 
that,  in  the  words  of  a  leading  English  decision,  "  the  pollution 
"  of  the  waters  of  a  navigable  stream  so  as  to  destroy  their 
"  value  for  primary  purposes,  by  leading  into  the  same  the 
"  sewage  of  the  town,  is  a  nuisance,"  and  "the  fact  that  sewage 
"  has  been  sent  there  for  many  years  does  not  give  a  prescrip- 
"  tive  right  to  continue  it,  when,  by  the  increase  therein,  it 
"  becomes  a  nuisance." 

These,  and  many  more  sentences  in  the  same  vein,  seem  to 


7° 

be  right  to  the  point,  and  worthy  of  attention  ;  for,  the  ex- 
ceptions to  the  rule  given  by  the  same  authority,  are,  (i)  when 
the  pollution  is  slight  and  not  appreciable,  or  (2)  when  the 
increase  of  pollution  is  not  noticeable. 

The  test  of  pollution  must  ever  be  a  scientific  one,  for  water 
may  be  absolutely  poisonous  from  animal  organisms,  and  still 
be  sweet  to  the  taste,  without  odor,  sparkling,  and  attractive 
to  the  eye ;  and  chemistry  tells  us  that  any  pollution  of  water 
with  sewage  is  material,  dangerous,  and  should  not  be  per- 
mitted even  when  the  water  is  only  occasionally  used  for 
drinking  purposes,  or  by  a  few  persons  only. 

The  Civil  Code  of  California. 

Our  Civil  Code  (Sec.  3479)  says  that  anything  which  "  offends 
decency"  is  a  nuisance,  or  that  "unlawfully  interferes  with,  ob- 
structs, or  tends  to  obstruct,  or  renders  dangerous  for  passage, 
any  lake,  or  navigable  river,  bay,  stream,  canal,  or  basin,"  etc. 

You  soon  will  have  two  thousand  people  at  your  institution. 
The  combined  personal  offal  of  this  number  of  human  beings, 
men,  women,  and  children  averaged,  is  one  hundred  and  forty- 
four  thousand  pounds  of  solid  matter,  and  one  million  nine 
hundred  thousand  pounds  of  liquid,  per  year. 

It  may  be  well  to  ask  whether  it  would  "offend  decency"  to 
put  this  matter  into  the  Stockton  Slough,  the  North  Street 
canal,  or  even  the  San  Joaquin  River;  and  it  may  be  well  to 
ask  whether  it  would  "tend  to  obstruct"  the  passage  of  boats, 
etc.,  to  put  this  matter  into  the  slough  or  river. 

Of  course,  I  cannot  advise  you  on  these  points,  but  simply 
bring  them  to  your  notice  that  you  may  inquire  further  from 
the  right  source  for  legal  advice. 

CAN  THE  SEW AG?:  BE  RETAINED  ON    THE  ASYLUM  GROUNDS? 

As  the  alternative  to  the  removal  of  the  sewage  from  your 
institution  to  the  river  or  other  tide-water  outfall,  the  question 
presented  is:  can  the  sewage  be  retained  upon  the  asylum 
grounds  without  producing  effects  detrimental  to  the  sanitary 


condition  of  the  neighborhood — the  health  and  comfort  of  per- 
sons there  resident? 

To  this  question  I  reply  YES,  in  my  judgment  this  can  be 
done,  and,  more  too,  the. sewage  is  valuable  and  should  not  be 
wasted. 

But,  it  will  be  answered :  this  sewage  matter  has  been  thus 
utilized  for  years  in  the  past,  until  now  it  has  become  a  nui- 
sance, and  its  removal  is  demanded  alike  for  the  good  of  the 
health  and  comfort  of  the  residents  roundabout. 

That  there  are  offensive  odors  pervading  these  grounds  dur- 
ing the  warm  and  still  Summer  and  Fall  months,  that  the 
sewage  itself  at  such  times  is  quite  offensive,  that  the  effect  in 
the  neighborhood  of  the  cesspool  where  it  is  collected  is  very 
repulsive,  and  that  this  state  of  things  is  not  only  disagreeable 
but  alarming  and  demands  speedy  correction,  I  am  prompt  to 
admit;  but  that  the  mentioned  effects  are  due  to  sewage  irri- 
gation, I  do  not  admit 

The  Present  Arrangements. 

With  several  thousand  feet  of  large  wooden  box  drain, 
which  must  by  this  time  be  filled  with  decomposing  and  most 
foul  matter,  leading  from  the  buildings  through  the  grounds  to 
the  cesspool ;  with  a  great  pit  or  hole  in  the  ground,  unlined, 
uncovered,  which  has  for  years  been  the  receptacle  for  all  this 
matter,  for  a  cesspool,  the  earth  of  its  sides  and  bottom  soaked 
and  reeking  with  corrupted  matter;  with  an  open  bucket 
pump  to  raise  the  filthy  liquid,  all  exposed  to  the  sun  and  air, 
dripping  and  dirty  the  year  around ;  with  open  wooden  flumes, 
soaked  with  the  fermenting  matter  of  months  ago,  laid  about 
the  grounds  for  the  distribution  of  the  sewage  in  irrigation; 
with  these  arrangements,  I  say,  you  have  quite  sufficient  cause 
for  emanations  of  the  most  repulsive  kind  and  far-reaching 
power,  without  attributing  any  part  of  such  noticed  effects  to 
the  sewage  irrigated  grounds  themselves. 

If  these  grounds  contribute  in  any  material  degree  to  this 
nuisance,  it  is  for  reasons  of  Insufficient  preparation  of  them 


72 

for  irrigation,  and  unsuitable  arrangements  for  the  distribution 
of  the  waters  in  irrigation,  to  wit : 

1.  Because   they  are  not    underdrained,  and   consequently 

(a)  do  not   take  the  sewage  water  promptly  as  they  should, 

(b)  at  times  become  over-saturated  and  give  off  their  super- 
fluous moisture  by  evaporation  from  the  surface  instead  of  by 
underdrainage  as  they  should,  (c)  do   not  become   promptly 
aerified  after  each  irrigation,  and  (d)  swell  upon  being  soaked 
and  crack  open  on  becoming  dry. 

2.  Because  in  distribution,  the  sewage  is  run  long  distances 
in   shallow  open   ditches,  thus  permitting   the  soil   inclosing 
these   channel-ways  to  become  overcharged  with  the   liquid 
and  the  bottom   and  sides  of  the  ditches  to   become  coated 
with  sewage  sediment,  so  that  when  the   irrigation  is  stopped 
and  water  withdrawn  from  any  such  ditch  there  is   a   film  or 
deposit   of  matter   left    in    it — not  taken   into  the   soil    and 
deodorized  as  it  should  be  by  it.     And  finally, 

3.  Because  the  irrigation   is  not  carried   on  with   dispatch 
and  promptness,  but  the  waters   are   left  running  for  hours, 
slowly  finding  their  way  about  the  grounds.     This  is  more  the 
outcome  of  inefficient   distributing  works,   perhaps,  than    of 
poor  management  in  their  use. 

Proper  Arrangements  to  be  Made. 

In  my  judgment,  when  the  foul  wooden  box-drains  shall 
have  been  removed,  and  the  ditches  in  which  they  have  lain 
have  been  refilled  with  fresh  soil  mixed  with  lime,  when  the 
earthen  pit  cesspool  shall  have  been  thoroughly  emptied, 
cleansed,  and  in  like  manner  filled  up;  when  the  wooden  box 
distributing  troughs  or  flumes  and  open  bucket  pumps  shall 
have  been  put  well  out  of  the  way;  when  the  sewage  is  con- 
ducted from  the  buildings  in  good  ironstone  glazed  sewer 
pipes  laid  with  neat  cement  joints,  into  a  covered  vat  or  tank 
with  concrete  floor  and  walls  neatly  rendered  in  cement,  and 
is  then  pumped  by  some  suitable  closed  pump  through  proper 
pipes  and  thus  distributed  about  the  grounds  so  that  it  will 


73 

never  have  to  run  more  than  a  hundred  feet  through  an  open 
ditch ;  when  these  grounds  are  underdrained  and  about  twenty 
acres  of  them  specially  prepared  for  sewage  irrigation,  and 
twenty  acres  more  kept  in  such  condition  of  cultivation  that 
the  sewage  can  occasionally  be  put  thereon  to  advantage, 
then — when  these  things  are  done — your  sewage  waters  can 
be  kept  at  home  without  nuisance  or  offense  to  any  one  and 
with  great  advantage  to  the  economy  of  your  institution. 

If  anything  further  is  required  to  insure  perfect  sanitary 
results,  I  should  first  look  to  your  house  plumbing  and  indoor 
drainage  work.  All  the  outside  work  may  be  perfect,  but 
with  these  defective,  as  they  are  in  ninety-nine  cases  out  of 
every  hundred  in  this  State,  and,  as  I  have  no  doubt  they  are 
in  the  older  buildings  at  least  of  your  institution,  no  amount 
of  conducting  the  sewage  away  or  properly  using  it  on  the 
grounds  will  accomplish  the  result  which  should  be  your  pri- 
mary object  to  attain. 

If  after  these  works  are  tried,  it  appears  desirable  to  make 
assurance  doubly  sure  in  the  line  of  complete  sanitary  treat- 
ment of  your  sewage,  which  I  do  not  think  will  be  the  case, 
it  will  then  be  time  to  erect  a  proper  tank  or  tanks,  and  by 
the  use  of  some  one  of  the  processes  for  precipitation  hereto- 
fore described,  clarify  your  sewage  before  applying  the  water 
to  the  land,  and  promptly  mixing  the  precipitated  matter 
with  ashes,  dry  stable  manure,  and  dry  earth,  sell  it  for  manure, 
or  apply  it  at  the  proper  season  to  enrich  the  fields  and  gar- 
dens of  your  reservation. 

I  am  satisfied  for  the  present,  however,  that  with  proper 
means  of  collecting  and  promptly  and  rapidly  distributing 
your  sewage  on  well  prepared  grounds,  and  with  a  skillful  use 
of  these  appliances,  you  will  not  need  any  precipitating  tanks, 
for  you  have  ample  grounds  to  spare  upon  which,  if  properly 
prepared  and  arranged,  to  put  the  sewage  of  6,000  people,  at 
almost  the  minimum  rate  at  which  such  disposal  is  made  in 
older  countries,  in  instances  where  no  nuisances  or  bad  effect 
of  any  kind  is  produced. 
10 


74 

Your  land,  soil  and  subsoil,  to  be  sure,  is  not  of  the  most 
favorable  quality  for  irrigation.  It  is  a  heavy  adobe  soil, 
varying  in  depth  from  two  to  four  feet,  on  a  clay  marl  subsoil ; 
whereas  it  should  to  best  advantage  be  of  lighter,  more  sandy, 
texture,  deeper  and  on  a  more  open  subsoil.  But  thorough 
tile  underdrainage  will  do  much  to  correct  the  defects  of  the 
soil  and  make  up  for  the  want  of  a  porous  subsoil  and  the 
absence  of  natural  drainage-ways  in  the  vicinity. 

This  absence  of  natural  drainage-ways,  and  the  small  slope 
of  the  plain,  rendering  it  difficult  to  get  a  good  gravity  outfall 
for  the  under-drainage  of  the  land,  it  may  be  necessary  and 
probably  will,  at  times  during  the  rainy  season  at  least,  to  lead 
the  drainage  waters  into  a  well,  and  pump  them  out  into 
some  neighboring  natural  surface  drainage  channel,  or  into  the 
North  Street  canal.  These  waters,  of  course,  will  be  inoffen- 
sive and  nearly  if  not  quite  as  pure  as  any  drainage  waters^ 
for  they  will  be  in  part  rain  waters,  and  will  all  have  passed 
through  the  soil,  and  have  been  subjected,  as  we  have  seen, 
to  the  best  known  process  for  their  purification — the  natural 
one  of  land  filtration  and  plant  action — and  hence  they  can 
be  discharged  anywhere  that  any  waters  may  be  run,  without 
giving  cause  for  complaint.  Such  drainage  waters  are  freely 
admitted  into  all  streams  in  the  countries  where  this  subject 
has  received  so  much  attention,  and  where  the  war  against 
sewage  pollutions  is  most  earnestly  carried  on. 

Beyond  these  arrangements,  there  should  be  some  systematic 
crop  rotation  established  for  your  grounds,  whereunder  your 
sewage  can  be  utilized  in  the  watering  of  such  plants  as  best 
receive  it  and  thrive  by  its  use,  while  other  crops  which  we 
know  do  not  do  well  under  its  influence  should  be  irrigated 
with  pure  water. 

Sew  age- Farming  and  Drainage. 

An  essential  feature  of  preparation,  natural  or  artificial,  for 
successful  irrigation — good  crop  returns  and  good  sanitary 
condition  of  the  fields  and  neighborhood — when  carried  on 
with  the  purest  waters  even,  is  perfect  drainage  and  a  well 


75 

aerated  soil.  Where  these  are  absent,  crops  will  after  awhile 
begin  to  fail,  special  plant  diseases  appear,  malarial  affections 
will  become  prevalent  amongst  the  people,  and  irrigation  will 
be  voted  a  failure  and  fraught  with  more  harm  than  good. 

There  are  localities  where  such  conditions  prevail,  and  such 
results  are  being  encountered  now  in  California.  It  is  an  old 
story  in  older  countries,  but  here  the  question  is  not  under- 
stood. All  over  this  State  where  irrigation  is  practiced,  pro- 
vision for  drainage  will  after  awhile  have  to  be  made. 

You  cannot  have  a  fine  stand  of  alfalfa  under  irrigation  on 
thirty  to  forty  acres  of  your  land,  the  soil  and  subsoil  being 
as  it  is,  and  long  preserve  a  good  sanitary  condition  of  your 
grounds  and  neighborhood,  unless  you  drain  them.  If  irriga- 
tion is  to  go  on  and  be  extended  around  your  buildings,  of  the 
character  that  has  been  carried  forward,  there  should  be  under- 
drainage,  whether  you  use  sewage  waters  or  clear  artesian  well 
waters. 

A  sewage  farm  is  what  we  choose  to  make  it — unobjection- 
able as  a  neighbor  if  we  will,  very  objectionable  if  we  allow  it 
to  be. 

Sewage  waters  are  not  offensive  during  the  first  twenty-four 
hours  after  their  pollution,  if  they  are  kept  from  the  sun,  or 
in  any  event  for  the  first  eighteen  to  twenty  hours,  if  retained 
in  proper  receptacles. 

An  essential  feature  of  an  unobjectionable  sewage  farm  is 
an  undefiled  receptacle  for  the  fresh  sewage,  which  can  be 
washed  out  and  kept  rjure,  and  like  means  of  distributing  the 
sewage  rapidly  and  to  points  near  where  it  is  to  be  absorbed 
by  the  ground.  . 

You  have  not  any  of  these  essentials  to  success  in  conduct- 
ing your  sewage  irrigation.  Let  us  provide  them,  and  then 
see  if  anything  more  be  needed. 

CONCLUSION. 

In  carrying  out  these  suggestions — by  keeping  your  sewage 
at  home  and  utilizing  it  on  your  grounds — you  will  be  only 
doing  what  hundreds  of  other  authorities  in  charge  of  similar 


institutions  less  favorably  situated,  with  respect  to  climate  at 
least,  are  doing  or  preparing  to  do,  what  hundreds  of  small 
and  large  towns  are  doing  or  preparing  to  do,  what  many 
others  would  do  if  the  local  circumstances  would  admit  of  it, 
and  what  is  gradually  being  recognized  .throughout  the  world 
as  the  proper  and  only  reasonable  thing  to  be  done  with 
sewage. 

Sanitary  and  engineering  literature  of  this  day  and  for  the 
past  ten  years  is  replete  with  evidence  of  this  fact,  and  with 
practical  information  as  to  how  to  insure  success  in  such  works. 
Your  minds  once  made  up  to  this  course,  and  your  work  well 
done,  you  will  have  taken  the  right  steps  to  accomplish  your 
purpose  of  proper  sanitation  of  your  institution,  and  will  have 
done  nothing  not  necessary  in  any  event. 

The  engineering  aspect  of  your  problem,  with  plans  and 
estimates  for  your  work,  will  be  briefly  set  forth  in  the  next 
and  final  part  of  this  report. 


YC/0495! 


1*262480 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


